Your Opinion on Marriage

[Doran]

Does it come down to semantics? Those in opposition seem to believe that the word "marriage" can only be a union/covenant sanctioned by the church, or to be more specific, by the Judeo/Christian church. But, as you note here, Phred, in my estimation, the broader and more historically correct view of marriage does not require religion at all. And, when marriage includes a religious ceremony, it does not define which religion.

 

The discussions of same sex marriages are forever laden with the issue of morality, yet time and again I see that those against it have a different moral code all picked out for the rest of us. Separate and not equal.

[Greta]

You are probably correct on this one. I cannot say for sure that you are, since, for example, Hindu practice seems to fly directly in the face of the Golden Rule.

 

It is taught in Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517 I'm sure that in practice, many people in many religions often lose sight of it, but it is taught by all the major religions.

In defining "morality," you appear to have used the term in its own definition, and are perhaps guilty of circular reasononing...

 

I was guilty of poor wording and expression. But the reasoning isn't circular. When people asked Buddha what it means to act morally, when people asked Jesus what it means to act morally, when people asked Confucius, Muhammad, Socrates, Baha'u'llah, etc., etc., so on and so forth, they all had this same answer: that it is immoral to do to others what you would not wish done to yourself (or conversely that it is moral to treat others the way you would wish to be treated). That is, from my perspective, the one universal moral truth, the definition of morality. I'm not saying it's true because all of these people said it's true. Morality is not decided by a majority vote. But I am saying that when you find ONE principle that unites every religion, it's worth taking note of and giving serious thought to. Different religions have very different notions of what God(s) expect(s) of them. But this is one thing they all agree on. That gives it some serious weight.

 

Your attempt at a definition of morality is based only on "how you would have others treat you." It is not an objective standard, but a subjective one, correct? Theoretically, an action that is "moral" for you might be "immoral" for someone else. This standard (of morality) cannot be applied to anyone but yourself...IOW, you cannot ever call anyone else's actions definitely "immoral"...just your own. Please correct me if I'm not representing your view accurately.

 

I can call the actions of others immoral when I know they are doing something that they wouldn't want to have done to them, that NO ONE would want done to them. This is why I practice and advocate non-violence. No one wants to be beaten or tortured or raped or killed. These things bring pain and suffering. Doing them is immoral. Period. I think it's more objective than you realize. But maybe what you're getting at is that there may be times when it is difficult for us to see how to apply the Golden Rule to a given situation, and that is definitely true. I'm not saying it's necessarily easy, but I am saying it's right.

 

GretaLynne, I'm going to change your wording here to see how far you want to go with this line of reasoning.

 

I think your example shows the difference between short-term gratification and real happiness and well-being. Sometimes, aiding someone in their short-term gratification brings them long-term harm. There was a time when I was doing something in my life that was bringing harm to myself, and I found out who my truest friend was because she had the courage to tell me "hey, you need to wake up!" She was following the Golden Rule, because she did what was best for me, even though it was uncomfortable for both of us. She could have instead decided that she shouldn't interfere or that maybe she should even support me in my bad choice. But that would not truly be applying the Golden Rule because it would be doing what's easy, not what's right.

 

Perhaps the difference here is that you view homosexuality as something that's about short-term gratification at the sacrifice of long-term well-being, but I do not? I think there are both healthy and unhealthy heterosexual relationships, and both healthy and unhealthy homosexual relationships. But I do not feel that I can say across the board that one is great and the other is bad.

 

I just think (saying this again at the risk of over-repetition) that we have different definitions of the basic terms of this discussion (morality, sexuality, and marriage, mainly).

 

Perhaps you're right. But I still would like to hope that we can have a meaningful discussion and come to understand each other's definitions and perspectives.

 

I've got more thoughts buzzing around in my head, but I've got to go. Probably won't be able to check back until tomorrow, but thanks for the interesting conversation!

[Mrs Mungo]

Homosexuality has been present since the beginning. It's even present in Genesis. I would go on about Leviticus and how people pick and choose which of God's commands they think still apply and which don't but it's beside the point. The fact is, not everyone believe in or follows The Bible and you can't legislate from a Biblical standpoint.

 

I do understand that many people view marriage as a religious rite but it's also become a very secular word. Not everyone who calls themself "married" has had a religous ceremony (as pointed out by several posters).

 

As far as Romans 1 goes-the ultimate point of the writing is that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

Wow. I think this is the first controversial thread I've ever participated in, but...

 

I voted that legal marriage should be between a man and a woman. And then I read the replies. And then I changed my mind.

 

I believe that civil unions (or whatever the government chooses to call them) should be available to any two consenting adults...including a parent and grown child, or two adult siblings. Otherwise there would be descrimination against adults who were not interested in a sexual relationship or couldn't find a partner. It seems that every adult should have as much chance as the next for finding someone to bear the burden of life alongside them.

 

Morally (or spiritually, or ?) based marriages should be recognized within churches or non-government organizations (with adults obviously being free to choose a religious/spiritual/social group). Each group is free to state their own definition.

 

This is one of those things that boils down to a definition, and no one definition is going to satisfy everyone in this very personal area.

[Julie Herbster]

Oh yes, Romans 1. I'm sorry, I'm not sure how that escaped my attentions. Paul is discussing a group of Romans who were Christians and left the faith for Paganism. They participated in an orgy. Something quite common in those days. He's condemning what they did. All of 'em piled up there nekkid and all.

Interesting take on this...How do you know this is what he referring to in this specific passage? What in the text drives you to believe this?

 

Why is this suddenly more important than say, the passages regulating slavery, or those that require prostitutes to be burned alive? Those that advocate genocide and those that require the victim of rape to marry the rapist? Shall we execute non-virgin brides?

These are loaded questions that bring other issues to the table. Suffice it to say that no one is making any Scripture "more important" than any other. Context is important.

 

I don't have to spin the Bible. It's very clear... Paul saw the Greek temple and didn't like what he saw. The former Christians gave themselves over to a whiz-bang orgy with men and women all together at the same time. How is this a condemnation of the homosexual person himself?

How do you explain these phrases (emphasis added)? "Even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty for their error which was due." The syntax of these sentences show an obvious contrast between "the natural use of the woman" and "burning in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful."

 

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

 

It is correct that someone who is guilty of this kind of behavior should not sit in judgment against another person who is; that is hypocrisy, pure and simple, which is what this verse is condemning.

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm always struck by the term "lifestyle choice". Friends and family whom I know that are gay, did not choose to be so. They did not wake one day and say, "wow, I think I will choose to be something so many hate and are fearful of." That they were excited to be shamed from their families, their communities, mocked at work, or even killed. I firmly believe in a short while, science will show that homosexuality is not a choice but biologically based. Which in itself will be a problem, because those who are so freaked out by it will want science to find a "cure" for it... so we can all be the same, right?

[Julie Herbster]

 

Why in the world not just let more people in? Be inclusive, not exclusive. If you think your god won't like it then set parameters in your church. But please stop blocking this on the outside of your church.

"Our God" is not just the "God of the church." As the Creator of our world, He has the right to make the rules for His whole creation. It is not about us "blocking" or "excluding" anyone; we simply align ourselves with God's rules, not our own. That (the basis for who has the right to make the rules about marriage) is the farthest we can go in this discussion.

[ticklbee]

I've read all these posts with great interest and much sadness. When we as a society can not even agree on what is right and wrong or moral and immoral, well the door is wide open for anything or everything. It basically comes down to this: Either two men or women having sex with each other is wrong or it is not. And whether it is right or wrong has nothing to do with what WE think. Right will always be right and wrong will always be wrong. And homosexuality is wrong. Plain and simple. Not because I say so or because that is my opinion. It's wrong simply because our Creator has said so. But, if you don't believe in God then you have no standard to go by. You are making up rules and opinions solely on what you think or how you feel about the issue.

 

My BIL is homosexual. I love my BIL dearly. He is a great guy. However, he has chosen to live an immoral lifestyle. When we are at a family gathering and I'm watching my BIL and his partner, I just can not escape how unnatural it is. All of nature is male/female. To be otherwise is unnatural. My BIL knows our feelings and we know his. We love him and pray for him but he is free to choose how he lives his life. God has given us all a free will and we can choose to love and serve HIM or we can choose to go our own ways.

 

But make no mistake - there ARE consequences for going our own ways and rejecting our Creator. This, we can not escape.

[Mrs Mungo]

"Our God" is not just the "God of the church." As the Creator of our world, He has the right to make the rules for His whole creation. It is not about us "blocking" or "excluding" anyone; we simply align ourselves with God's rules, not our own. That (the basis for who has the right to make the rules about marriage) is the farthest we can go in this discussion.

 

Even Jesus recognized that Caesar's laws would not be the same as God's laws. Even He left room for separation of religious laws and earthly, secular laws. But you cannot?

 

eta: even at the time many of these laws were written they applied *only* to the Israelites. When Paul was writing he was writing about what the early Christians should do amongst themselves. Nowhere is it implied that those teachings should be applied universally.

[Jenny in Atl]

I've read all these posts with great interest and much sadness. When we as a society can not even agree on what is right and wrong or moral and immoral, well the door is wide open for anything or everything. It basically comes down to this: Either two men or women having sex with each other is wrong or it is not. And whether it is right or wrong has nothing to do with what WE think. Right will always be right and wrong will always be wrong. And homosexuality is wrong. Plain and simple. Not because I say so or because that is my opinion. It's wrong simply because our Creator has said so. But, if you don't believe in God then you have no standard to go by. You are making up rules and opinions solely on what you think or how you feel about the issue.

 

My BIL is homosexual. I love my BIL dearly. He is a great guy. However, he has chosen to live an immoral lifestyle. When we are at a family gathering and I'm watching my BIL and his partner, I just can not escape how unnatural it is. All of nature is male/female. To be otherwise is unnatural. My BIL knows our feelings and we know his. We love him and pray for him but he is free to choose how he lives his life. God has given us all a free will and we can choose to love and serve HIM or we can choose to go our own ways.

 

But make no mistake - there ARE consequences for going our own ways and rejecting our Creator. This, we can not escape.

 

All of nature is not male/female... the are all sorts of variations of reproduction, fish who can change sex depending on the group dynamics, asexual reproduction, etc. The are a number of animals who engage in homosexual behavior, especially primates. Have you really talked to your BIL, asked him when he CHOOSE to be gay?

[Julie Herbster]

Even Jesus recognized that Caesar's laws would not be the same as God's laws. Even He left room for separation of religious laws and earthly, secular laws. But you cannot?

Should we be OK with a government which allows murder, or encourages injustice? Why or why not? Do you think it is all right for a government to make laws that are not just "different," but diametrically opposed to the Creator's rules? Don't you think the best government would make laws in keeping with the rules set up by the Creator of the universe, since by abiding by those ultimate rules, a government could be nothing but in harmony with the Source of all things good?

 

The point of Jesus's comments about money and Caesar is that His followers should pay taxes, not that government should make laws opposed to the Creator's laws.

 

Our government (theoretically) is the people itself. We are the government. Voting against same-sex marriage is not voting "for" or "against" government. It is exercising our right to govern. The way that we vote (govern) on this issue reflects the belief system with which we align ourselves. Either there is a Creator God who has spoken on the issue, or we are left to our own reasoning and devices.

[nmoira]

 

GretaLynne, I'm going to change your wording here to see how far you want to go with this line of reasoning. NOTE: The following are not the words of GretaLynne. They are of my own construction. When I try to mentally put myself in the shoes of someone who wants to engage in necrophilia or bestiality (sex with the dead, or with an animal) and share a sexual bond with someone or something they love, and then they're told they can't because the person or animal they love is dead or of a different species, I can feel that hurt. I have no wish to inflict that pain on someone, so my moral conscience leads me to conclude that since sexuality is a deeply personal decision, and since people are different, sexual preferences are going to take many different forms. And while one form may look more comfortable or natural or acceptable to me than another, it would be immoral of me to impose my ideas on others.

What makes necrophilia different from the idea of gay marriage are issues of consent. Consent of the dead person relative to their wishes as to what should be done with their corpse, and of the relatives whose "property" the corpse now is. There are laws dealing with appropriate disposal of corpses, and laws against necrophilia make sense. Bestiality too I suppose... especially in cases of obvious abuse, but it's probably been a much more common practice than most people would suspect.

[Jill- OK]

Long before it was a religious covenant it was a survival covenant.

 

I'd call it more of a natural 'covenant', if you want to use that word, but outside of any spiritual connotations, I would guess that the biological reality of it taking a partnership of a man and woman to make a baby and carry on the species is what led to the formalization of that natural union, and the cultural institution of marriage. ::Shrug::

[Mrs Mungo]

Should we be OK with a government which allows murder, or encourages injustice? Why or why not? Do you think it is all right for a government to make laws that are not just "different," but diametrically opposed to the Creator's rules? Don't you think the best government would make laws in keeping with the rules set up by the Creator of the universe, since by abiding by those ultimate rules, a government could be nothing but in harmony with the Source of all things good?

 

The point of Jesus's comments about money and Caesar is that His followers should pay taxes, not that government should make laws opposed to the Creator's laws.

 

At the time homosexuality was extremely common practice amongst the Romans. Did He suggest His followers do something to stop it?

 

The right to swing your fist ends at my face. That's where secular laws come into play. That's why murder is illegal.

 

Our government (theoretically) is the people itself. We are the government. Voting against same-sex marriage is not voting "for" or "against" government. It is exercising our right to govern. The way that we vote (govern) on this issue reflects the belief system with which we align ourselves.

 

Just as in another recent thread I have to call up the idea that the Constitution's purpose is to prevent the Tyranny of the Majority. The majority's will does not take precendent over people's rights.

 

Either there is a Creator God who has spoken on the issue, or we are left to our own reasoning and devices.

 

I certainly believe there is a Creator who has spoken on the issue but I realize that not everyone believes in my God and that we do not live in a theocracy.

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

I know this question comes at waaay at the bottom of a lengthy conversation, but I am sincerely interested in knowing what same-sex partners feel that discrimination is denying them. Is it about legal benefits? Why, then, should those legal benefits be denied to people who chose not to be in a sexually-based relationship? Why couldn't a widowed mother and her adult daughter who has chosen not to have a husband be given the same opportunity for a legal union? Why not unmarried siblings?

 

If it is a question of having a sexual relationship validated, do people who chose not to be in a sexual relationship for any reason (spiritual, unable to find a spouse, etc.) feel discriminated against?

 

If the relationship is a personal commitment thing (sexual or not), why the need to have a government stamp on it at all?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It seems that every adult should have as much chance as the next for finding someone to bear the burden of life alongside them.

 

 

This is a very sweet post and raises an issue I'd never even thought of. Thanks.

[Jenny in Atl]

I know this question comes at waaay at the bottom of a lengthy conversation, but I am sincerely interested in knowing what same-sex partners feel that discrimination is denying them. Is it about legal benefits? Why, then, should those legal benefits be denied to people who chose not to be in a sexually-based relationship? Why couldn't a widowed mother and her adult daughter who has chosen not to have a husband be given the same opportunity for a legal union? Why not unmarried siblings?

 

If it is a question of having a sexual relationship validated, do people who chose not to be in a sexual relationship for any reason (spiritual, unable to find a spouse, etc.) feel discriminated against?

 

If the relationship is a personal commitment thing (sexual or not), why the need to have a government stamp on it at all?

 

Actually, by them being blood relations (mother daughter, brother sister) they do already have more legal rights that a gay couple would have; with health issues, property, etc.

[nmoira]

But, if you don't believe in God then you have no standard to go by. You are making up rules and opinions solely on what you think or how you feel about the issue.

:( Do Hindu deities count? How about Buddhists -- they don't exactly have a god? Secular humanists are right out apparently...

 

Believe it or not, people who don't believe in your god (or indeed any gods) who are able to conceptualize generalizable moral frameworks (some more fluid than others) without leaving it to whim.

[nmoira]

 

Actually, buy them being blood relations (mother daughter, brother sister) they do already have more legal rights that a gay couple would have; with health issues, property, etc.

:iagree: Two good friend of mine looked after relatives (a mother and a grandmother) they were able to declare as dependents.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

You are making up rules and opinions solely on what you think or how you feel about the issue.

 

Nope. Not true. But I understand that you feel that way, as I used to see people outside my religious life the same way.

 

All of nature is male/female.

 

 

 

 

Definitely not true. Not even for mammals.

 

I won't say it's evolutionarily adaptive, if by that one defines "adaptive" as "live long enough to procreate." Homosexual behavior in mammals does not lead to reproduction. But it's not outside the realm of "natural." But then again, I don't define what it means to be human by looking at apes or annelids, so I can't go down this road as an argument for my side without being extremely disingenuous.

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

But how about a sibling getting health insurance or, say, an additional (free) Costco membership for the other? :)

 

I agree about the fact that they have more rights as family members in general though...

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

And you made my day, Pam, with your reply. :)

 

Have a lovely day.

[Jenny in Atl]

But how about a sibling getting health insurance or, say, an additional (free) Costco membership for the other? :)

 

I agree about the fact that they have more rights as family members in general though...

 

Do couples get deals on insurance? We sure don't, just the kids do. But we are self employed so not sure there.

 

With Costco you can get additional cards for family members, or even employes. Not trying to be argumentative but the rights of family, even extended, far outweigh anything a gay couple has now.

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

 

If the relationship is a personal commitment thing (sexual or not), why the need to have a government stamp on it at all?

 

If the relationship is a personal commitment thing it helps to have the government stamp on it to be able to make decisions on behalf of their partner. For example, if one of them should become incapacitated, then the other has the legal right to provide for them. They can also share health benefits and property among other things.

 

am sincerely interested in knowing what same-sex partners feel that discrimination is denying them. Is it about legal benefits? Why, then, should those legal benefits be denied to people who chose not to be in a sexually-based relationship? Why couldn't a widowed mother and her adult daughter who has chosen not to have a husband be given the same opportunity for a legal union? Why not unmarried siblings?

 

Because brother and sister, or mother and daughter are legally family. They do already have certain rights under the law. People who want the legal right to marry want to become a family in the eyes of the law, friends and family. They want to have a bond that is personal and legal - after all, it's ok for a man and a woman to want that bond (even if they are NOT religious) so all they are asking for is the same right.

 

All homosexuals are asking for is the same rights under the law (not under a Church or religious law) that heterosexuals have and I don't think that's too much too ask in a free country like ours.

 

If other groups feel like they are being discriminated against, then they should certainly ban together and look for solutions among themselves or within our legal system. Maybe it won't get them far, but they deserve to be heard. Isn't America wonderful? :patriot:

[Michelle in MO]

Looks like possible pagan practice to me.

 

it's definitely pagan practice. The point I was trying to make is that Paul is in no way addressing Romans who were former Christians who left the faith and participated in an orgy. That is not referenced anywhere in this Scripture, or in any other passage in Romans. He was referring to this practice as a pagan practice in general, but there is not even a hint of an allusion to Roman Christians who had left the faith.

[Caroline]

Do couples get deals on insurance? We sure don't, just the kids do. But we are self employed so not sure there.

 

With Costco you can get additional cards for family members, or even employes. Not trying to be argumentative but the rights of family, even extended, far outweigh anything a gay couple has now.

 

I think the insurance thing depends on your employer. The company for which my DH works pays 100% of his insurance and 50% of the rest of the family. It is a great benefit for us. Although people who aren't married probably feel discriminated against since in essence, my DH gets paid more.

[Julie Herbster]

At the time homosexuality was extremely common practice amongst the Romans. Did He suggest His followers do something to stop it?

If He did, it is not recorded in Scripture. His mission was not to change society, but to die for the sins of the world. He certainly commented on the duties His followers had to government (pay taxes, obey the laws), but social reformation was not on His agenda.

 

The right to swing your fist ends at my face. That's where secular laws come into play. That's why murder is illegal.

I like how you put that! I'll have to remember that! I agree. My point (with which I think you agree) is that our country's laws are founded on underlying principles...principles not just of justice, but of morality. Certain behaviors are right, and certain behaviors are wrong. On top of this foundation, we build law. Certainly, there are those "housekeeping" laws that are necessary to govern large nations that have a little less to do with these underlying principles (like, for example, mandatory carseat usage), but they do still relate to the underlying values.

 

Just as in another recent thread I have to call up the idea that the Constitution's purpose is to prevent the Tyranny of the Majority. The majority's will does not take precendent over people's rights.

Correct. Who decides what "people's rights" are?

 

I certainly believe there is a Creator who has spoken on the issue but I realize that not everyone believes in my God and that we do not live in a theocracy.

In reality, the whole universe is a theocracy, with God on the throne. He has communicated to us (both in our hearts and in His Word) "His rules," and He has also given us the power to choose whether or not we will align ourselves under those rules.

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

Do you still think marriage is a survival tool? Do same-sex partners want marriage for that reason?

 

Or has the reason and definition changed? If so, why is it so important to name it or catagorize it as the same thing?

[Michelle in MO]

Homosexuality has been present since the beginning. It's even present in Genesis. I would go on about Leviticus and how people pick and choose which of God's commands they think still apply and which don't but it's beside the point. The fact is, not everyone believe in or follows The Bible and you can't legislate from a Biblical standpoint.

 

I do understand that many people view marriage as a religious rite but it's also become a very secular word. Not everyone who calls themself "married" has had a religous ceremony (as pointed out by several posters).

 

As far as Romans 1 goes-the ultimate point of the writing is that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

This particular section of Romans is just one glimpse of the entire book---the whole point is to show that all are sinners. Thank you for your contribution. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

If He did, it is not recorded in Scripture. His mission was not to change society, but to die for the sins of the world. He certainly commented on the duties His followers had to government (pay taxes, obey the laws), but social reformation was not on His agenda.

 

EXACTLY my point. If it wasn't on His agenda why is it on YOUR agenda?

 

Correct. Who decides what "people's rights" are?

 

The courts.

 

In reality, the whole universe is a theocracy, with God on the throne. He has communicated to us (both in our hearts and in His Word) "His rules," and He has also given us the power to choose whether or not we will align ourselves under those rules.

 

Right. That's the point. We have free will given to us by God, why would you try to take it from people and force them to your way of belief?

[Jumping In Puddles]

One thing to add here is that my husband works for Verizon and when we were filling out the paperwork for health insurance and benefits they provide for same sex couples! I think that is awesome. Go Verizon :thumbup:

[nmoira]

 

Do couples get deals on insurance? We sure don't, just the kids do. But we are self employed so not sure there.

Not financial, but in the US there's the question of whether or not one can get private insurance. A spouse who may not qualify for private insurance can get coverage through a spouse's group medical plan at work. But the topic health insurance in the US is a whole 'nother can of worms. :)

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

I thought a spouse card was free and any other card was an additional fee, but I might be wrong. I know that we don't pay for my card, but do pay for the extra card we got for my husband's mother. I'm completely aware that a free Costco membership wouldn't make or break a union, it is just one of many examples...

 

I do realize that family members have 'more' rights, but does that make it right to exclude them because 'at least they have...'

 

Are you saying that the legal benefits are the deciding factor on why same-sex partners want a marriage? Is the reason they deserve (I don't know if another word would be more appropriate?) the legal benefits is because they have made a commitment to that other person? What sort of commitment does that need to be? Love? Necessity? Sexual? I really am trying to sort this out and pray this doesn't come out as snarky!

[Jenny in Atl]

I thought a spouse card was free and any other card was an additional fee, but I might be wrong. I know that we don't pay for my card, but do pay for the extra card we got for my husband's mother. I'm completely aware that a free Costco membership wouldn't make or break a union, it is just one of many examples...

 

I do realize that family members have 'more' rights, but does that make it right to exclude them because 'at least they have...'

 

Are you saying that the legal benefits are the deciding factor on why same-sex partners want a marriage? Is the reason they deserve (I don't know if another word would be more appropriate?) the legal benefits is because they have made a commitment to that other person? What sort of commitment does that need to be? Love? Necessity? Sexual? I really am trying to sort this out and pray this doesn't come out as snarky!

 

Let's you are a gay woman who has been in a relationship for 30+ years. Your partner becomes ill and has to go into the hospital. You have no right to be there outside normal visiting hours, since you are not "family". Let's say you have a home that the two of you lived during this time, both paid for but it's in her name and she dies; the home would not go to you but to her "blood" family or the state. It's about connection, safety, hope, family, bonds that have taken years to build, trashed because "others" do not see the relationship as valid.

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

But shouldn't those rights include close friends (male or female) who want a bond that is personal and legal? If a new law is made, it should be one that discriminates against *no one.* (If discrimination is the issue.) If I was a woman with no family and chose not to get married, I'd want the possibility of having a friend make medical decisions for me if I happened to be in a coma.

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

Are you saying that the legal benefits are the deciding factor on why same-sex partners want a marriage? Is the reason they deserve (I don't know if another word would be more appropriate?) the legal benefits is because they have made a commitment to that other person? What sort of commitment does that need to be? Love? Necessity? Sexual? I really am trying to sort this out and pray this doesn't come out as snarky!

 

They just want the same rights as heterosexuals.

 

Let's put it this way. Let's go back in time... to when women couldn't vote. Now apply your argument to that. Where did it get you?

 

Women wanted the same rights as men. Thankfully, the people who thought "If we give them that right, then where will it stop? Will we have to give the right to black people, or dogs, or whatever? No, there was an inequality in our system and it took a lot of protesting and debating and blood, sweat and tears to make it happen.

 

You have to not allow yourself to say "well, if we give the gays right to marry, then what will people want next!"

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

I understand what you are saying. Absolutely. The question I'm asking now is...

 

Say two elderly, non-homosexual woman live together. They have been the best of friends for years and years. They are closer to each other than any family they might (or might not) have. Shouldn't they have the same rights if they so choose? Is their relationship not valid either?

[Mommy22alyns]

Or has the reason and definition changed? If so, why is it so important to name it or catagorize it as the same thing?

 

 

Why is it so important to make it different?

 

When women wanted the right to vote, do you think a special "women's ballot" would have cut it? No - we wanted the same thing, the same weight. Separate but equal didn't cut it for racial relations, because it just doesn't work. Why ostracise and alienate and divide? Share the water fountains!

 

And as far as sexual or non-sexual relations within the context of marriage - when's the last time the government knocked on a married couple's door and asked how frequently they had sex? Whether or not it's there or its frequency doesn't determine the validity of a marriage.

 

For me it just goes back to what I mentioned before and what other posters have pointed out as well - no matter what the origins of marriage are, the fact is that a hetero couple married without any religious input whatsoever is still considered to be married in the eyes of the law. So unless people want to start tangling with invalidating marriages not performed by a religious official*, I find "the definition of marriage" to be problematic.

 

*(Or does it have to be a specific religion? Should we prohibit Buddhists from marrying under their particular religion because we don't personally agree with it, or it's not what has always been done?)

 

This is a topic I'm really passionate about. :)

[Jenny in Atl]

But shouldn't those rights include close friends (male or female) who want a bond that is personal and legal? If a new law is made, it should be one that discriminates against *no one.* (If discrimination is the issue.) If I was a woman with no family and chose not to get married, I'd want the possibility of having a friend make medical decisions for me if I happened to be in a coma.

 

Actually, I think you can.. enduring guardian, I think that's what most couples have to do.

 

http://www.adelta.com.au/guardianship.htm

[Jumping In Puddles]

But shouldn't those rights include close friends (male or female) who want a bond that is personal and legal? If a new law is made, it should be one that discriminates against *no one.* (If discrimination is the issue.) If I was a woman with no family and chose not to get married, I'd want the possibility of having a friend make medical decisions for me if I happened to be in a coma.

 

Then you can have a living will. Don't fall into the trap of "If we give gays the right to marry, then where do we draw the line?"

 

Gays want to marry not just for legal purposes but because they want to marry and have a family just as couples (non-religious) want to be married. They want to have a wedding and their friends and family witness it and celebrate it. They want the COMMITMENT from their loved one - be it hetero or homo!

 

Some man-woman couples don't wish to get married "for the piece of paper" some man-woman couples do.

 

Some gay couples just want the same right.

 

You are thinking this through to the point where it's illogical. Family and friends don't want to get married. Come on... you know this right?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

They just want the same rights as heterosexuals.

 

Let's put it this way. Let's go back in time... to when women couldn't vote. Now apply your argument to that. Where did it get you?

 

Women wanted the same rights as men. Thankfully, the people who thought "If we give them that right, then where will it stop? Will we have to give the right to black people, or dogs, or whatever? No, there was an inequality in our system and it took a lot of protesting and debating and blood, sweat and tears to make it happen.

 

You have to not allow yourself to say "well, if we give the gays right to marry, then what will people want next!"

 

Besides, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. You have to argue each issue on its own merits, not some imagined "what if" issue. Non Causa Pro Causa.

[Jenny in Atl]

Besides, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. You have to argue each issue on its own merits, not some imagined "what if" issue. Non Causa Pro Causa.

 

Ah, but some have said in this thread.. if homosexuality is ok, then why not.... You did not call them on their SS argument. :001_huh:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Ah, but some have said in this thread.. if homosexuality is ok, then why not.... You did not call them on their SS argument. :001_huh:

 

I was agreeing Jumping's post and adding even more. Hence the "and besides" in the first sentence. In part it was to answer other posts with slippery slope arguments. I've actually typed answers to those three times and erased them each time. I just wasn't in a good place in my head to be answering them, KWIM?

 

:001_smile:

[Jumping In Puddles]

I understand what you are saying. Absolutely. The question I'm asking now is...

 

Say two elderly, non-homosexual woman live together. They have been the best of friends for years and years. They are closer to each other than any family they might (or might not) have. Shouldn't they have the same rights if they so choose? Is their relationship not valid either?

 

They have a relationship and its defined: THEY ARE BEST FRIENDS! Unlike couples who want to marry, they don't want to be married! Please, if they want to leave everything in their will to each other - they are free to. If they want to actually "marry" then they could have a same sex marriage if it were legal.

 

If they don't share benefits because employee benefits are for married couples only but they think they should get them because they are so "close" then take it up in court - but this has nothing to do with the rights of homosexuals.

 

If someone wants to be able to share benefits with their flower bed - then fight for it... but this is a separate issue! Gay people are bringing it up because it is important to them. If close friends want to make a case then the courts and public opinion are always open.

[Jenny in Atl]

I was agreeing Jumping's post and adding even more. Hence the "and besides" in the first sentence. In part it was to answer other posts with slippery slope arguments. I've actually typed answers to those three times and erased them each time. I just wasn't in a good place in my head to be answering them, KWIM?

 

:001_smile:

 

Yes, I do... I find my self stepping back a lot. It's a good thing sometimes. :001_smile:

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

I'm actually not arguing. :) I guess I'm asking you to define the relationship and the cut-off point. And if the issue is discrimination, it seems to me that the way to fix it is to not descriminate.

 

And I think they should have given blacks the right to vote (obviously). And dogs shouldn't be allowed to vote for people, but they're welcome to vote for dogs. :)

 

I suppose I am also arguing for people who want a non-sexual commitment, honestly, and not saying 'but why stop there' in a 'but why can't dogs get married' sort of way.

[Jumping In Puddles]

Besides, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. You have to argue each issue on its own merits, not some imagined "what if" issue. Non Causa Pro Causa.

 

:thumbup: ...said better than I did!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

:thumbup: ...said better than I did!

 

Uh, nope. Sorry, but you are saying it VERY well. I don't buy that at ALL!

 

:D

[Mrs Mungo]

I suppose I am also arguing for people who want a non-sexual commitment, honestly, and not saying 'but why stop there' in a 'but why can't dogs get married' sort of way.

 

I think it's the sexual/love aspect that makes a marriage. If other people want a different sort of legal protection then they need something different.

[Jumping In Puddles]

I suppose I am also arguing for people who want a non-sexual commitment, honestly, and not saying 'but why stop there' in a 'but why can't dogs get married' sort of way.

 

EDIT: OK, I see where you're coming from - maybe people in a non-sexual commitment should have more legal rights but that's not going to happen until we get equal rights for gays. Maybe we should take this one step at a time?