Either gay marriage or no marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone who isn't going to have kids doesn't need any benefits from their marriage at all.

I have nothing against LGTB, nor married couples without kids, but neither should get any benefits out of marriage. Kids are the most important part of our society, their well being should be our greatest concern. I would imagine married LGBT folks wouldn't need those benifits anyways. Kids are a money-drain, marriage helps your wallet.

Even single moms should get support. Marriage shouldn't have ever been a cause for the reception of benefits of any kind.

Marriage is a ceremony, a vow, calling it a contract is soiling the meaning of it. I don't believe in marriage contracts, they give happy people tax breaks and give them a sense of entitlement. None of that half taking stuff either. If someone cheats, the other gets first pick.
I agree with the second. LGBT people have a right to be happy. Even have kids. If they raise the kid to be what he/she wants to be, they have done more than most straight families these days. That does not mean marriage mean legal benefits. Those legal benefits should only help children.

Why the churches? In many societies and cultures, marriage has never been the exclusive purview of religion. Nor did the Christian Church (I'm assuming that's whom you're referring to) invent marriage.

Christianity isn't the only religion. I think I will point out, prior to say, 1890, 80% of the world disagreed. Vikings had a marriage they invented.
Buddhism has their own form. Christianity didn't invent the christian marriage, we claim our God did. Most of us will agree when someone says, sex between a man and woman was purely nature, not religion. We did invent the christian marriage, but really God did, not us. If you don't want to say what we call a christian marriage, don't get married. Have a buddist ceremony, or shintoist one. You don't need a marriage themed the same as the themes we gave marriage. Believe in a different kind of vow, don't go saying til death do us part was invented by the boogyman in a disco party.

I agree that each religion should retain their rites and requirements for their own marriage ceremonies. But since marriage isn't the exclusive domain of religion, we should have room for civil marriages (e.g., non-religious marriage) as well. And those can be in the form of whatever each civil society wants.

That is precisely what my second option was: Removing marriage entirely as a government affair.



I only care in so far as much as I actually believe in that "liberty and justice for all" thing so many conservatives seem to disagree with. For the record, I'm a libertarian. There's by no means an "unhealthy" focus on gay people because they don't have equal rights yet. When that happens and we're still obsessing over gay people, THEN you'll have a point.

Are there infractions against being LGBT that give you factually less legal rights by law? No. there is just not the legal acknowledgement of LGBT marriage. Equal rights will never truly be completely enforced, you need to get the 'homophobic bigots' as you call them, to stop being corrupt first of all. Second, true rights are only recognized by your peers. It is up to an individual, no matter his orientation, to get people to treat him as an equal. What happened? When did people rely on laws for pen over sword type fights? LGBT people are capable as anyone to be liked and appreciated. It may be completely optimistic to think this way, but you shouldn't act like the law can protect you from people who hate the LGBT community. Eventually, I hope the LGBT community will realize getting politicians to protect them is like getting a politician to protect religion. For equality, you need to move to China, or Vietnam. In this country, you shift views, challenge leaders, and be honorable. Paper and pen will only go as far as getting yelled at until someone stands up for you. Prove it as you say.
To me, it is just a matter of getting respect. Treat me as you would a friend, and I will feel I am getting treated as an equal.

The state of MI is already passing or has passed a law allowing civil unions between LGBT couples. Since we are one of the tough states, with sh***y weather, like Alaska, montana, texas, and the other desert states, I doubt MI has much more to say to prove itself. We have Alaskan state troopers head straight to the UP of Michigan trying to recruit people to serve there because no one else know the cold as well as us for some reason. I even got handed out a flyer by an Alaskan State trooper, he was just throwing them to everyone, didn't care if they were in law enforcement or not.

First, and foremost, because I'm a Christian and God calls homosexuality an abomination. Even though it creeps me out, there's still times when I see two women who appear to be happy, and I wonder what His reasons are for banning it. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter; accepting the truth from someone does not always equal approving of it. That said, even thinking of two men in the same situation really disgusts me, because women are so much more beautiful and soft. I don't hate the people, but it really does puzzle me that any man in his right mind would prefer another guy over a girl in that regard.

MI = Michigan ? Michigan has a ban on same-sex unions/marriages ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/us/ca ... .html?_r=0

you made all this up?

An Alaska state trooper recruits in Michigan ? Sounds wrong also.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 11 Jan 2014, 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have a life long friend (also the best man at my wedding) who is gay. He can't control his attraction toward other men. I dare say, I don't understand what's attractive about another man. The point is, it's not a choice what we find sexually desirable. That's why gay men find men attractive.

LGBT people are subject to real legal discrimination in many jurisdictions. Even in 29 states in the US (including some parts of Michigan), it's still perfectly legal to get fired from your job solely for being gay. Some countries will put you in prison for being gay, and a few will actually execute you. Personally, I think these are far bigger issues for LGBT people (and societies in general) than same-sex marriage, as much as I'm keen to see it legalised.

And don't think that LGBT people are looking solely to governments for greater acceptance. Over decades there have been efforts in general society and culture to get people to see LGBT as something that's okay and worthy of equal respect. It's been slow going (as opposed to increasing acceptance of SSM, which has been rather rapid), but at least in developed countries real progress is being seen. Most countries now don't throw LGBT people in prison or mental hospitals. That's progress, too – even if there's still a long way to go.



It's cool for Michigan to start towards legal recognition of same-sex relationships – cold weather or otherwise. Michigan still has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions though, doesn't it? I have a feeling though that the US Supreme Court will simply make same-sex marriage legal nationwide in the next few years (I'd say 2–3 years), the same way that interracial marriage in the US was legalised in 1967 (i.e., by Supreme Court order, against the wishes of the states that still outlawed it). Time will tell, though.

The trial was to challenge the ban on LGBT marriage, not make it a law. Regardless of there being a ban on it currently, the state of Michigan is trying to legalize same sex marriage.

So because you are somewhat erotically stimulated by lesbians you are able to question gods banning them from their love, yet because you are not homosexual and the thought of you yourself getting it on with another man disgusts you then all men who do this are disgusting. Do you realise that homosexuals often find the idea of heterosexual act extremely unapealing, but unlike religious literalists they do not campaign for the outlawing of heterosexual acts. LEAVE THESE PEOPLE ALONE, they are not hurting you, and it is more than likely that you are wrong in your belief of an afterlife, it is quite likely that your values are destroying the lives of people who do not affect you in any way shape or form.

This.

In my view, homosexuality decreases the continuation of the reproductive cycle of humans. So does abortion. I have no intention of letting my beliefs that being LGBT is a sin make me hate them, or people who have an abortion. Love and compassion. We are not responsible for the hate the rest of religious folks show, and this board has a large problem with generalization. Don't yell at people who have shown no hatred toward anyone. Yell at the people in our religion. That barely ever even happens.

Yeah, I'm in pretty much complete agreement. The second option sounds preferable to me but, since we're clearly never going to do away with marriage as a legal institution, that leaves the first as the only fair and just option.



I'll take a shot at it.

There are really only four options here that I can see: The gov should recognize no marriages. The gov should recognize both hetero and homosexual marriages. The gov should recognize only heterosexual marriages. The gov should recognize only homosexual marriages (and, since I have never seen anyone take this last position, I'll ignore it).

Somebody who wants no marriages to be legally recognized is displaying no signs of homophobia. They are saying that, under the law, all romantic relationships should be valued the same; that is, not at all.

Somebody who wants both gay and straight marriages to be legally recognized is doing the same. They believe that hetero and homosexual relationships should be valued the same under the law, only difference being that they see that value as more than none.

Now people from either of those groups may be homophobic, "heterophobic," or a thousand other unpleasant things but, because they are advocating equal treatment under the law for both gay and straight relationships, we cannot draw any conclusions about their personal feelings toward either of those types of relationships.

Then there's the "only hetero marriages should be allowed" viewpoint. They are displaying clear preference for one type of relationship over the other. They are saying that public policy should encourage straight relationships while ignoring (if not necessarily discouraging) gay ones.

So why the preference for one type over the other? Let's examine the possible reasons.

Firstly, they may just outright dislike gay people. So, okay, homophobe. And yeah, at least some of the anti-gay marriage folks are in it for no other reason. I'm not gonna make any claim as to how many, but I've interacted with that type and they can be the loudest staunchest supporters of "traditional" marriage.

Second, they believe that recognizing gay marriage will result in negative consequences for the rest of society. But what might those negative consequences be? I'll go through the ones I've actually heard people say.

There's the idea that legalizing it will encourage people who might not otherwise be so inclined to pursue a gay lifestyle and, closely related, the idea that gay folks will get married and have children and raise them to be gay (which ignores the fact that gay people already have and raise kids). Now, aside from being utter nonsense, those fears are based on the belief that homosexuality is inherently inferior. If a person does not believe that they are inferior, then a possible rise in the gay population is a neutral matter, not something to fear nor something to get excited about and certainly not a reason to disallow them from getting married. If a person thinks more gays must automatically be a bad thing then they are, by definition, a homophobe.

There's the idea that allowing gay marriage is the start of a slippery slope toward legitimizing incest, bestiality, pedophilia and other unacceptable sexual/romantic preferences. To that I would ask; why is homosexuality specifically the start of that slope? Why not just sexuality in general? I mean, most people who engage in those practices do so with people of the opposite gender so, if one is genuinely fearful of a rise in the rates of those behaviors, a better solution would be to discourage heterosexuality (not that an individual of either preference is more likely to engage in them, just that there are so many more straight people). The only possible reasons I can see for targeting homosexual behavior specifically, in order to prevent the other stuff, are either because one considers homosexuality to be analagous to those behaviors or because one is sex-negative in general but focuses on gays because, being "other," they are a convenient target. Either way, homophobe.

Third, there are the religious reasons for opposing it. I'm not going to argue that "because god said so" is for most religious folks pretty much just an excuse to do whatever they were inclined to do anyway (even though that is my very firm belief). I'll accept, for the moment for the sake of argument, that whatever holy book the hypothetical anti-gay marriage person is waving around is true and infallible. In that case, why the focus on homosexuality over all other sins? Why not try to outlaw premarital sex? Or masturbation? Or, really, anything other than penetrative vaginal sex between married couples? Or, going outside of the sexual realm for the moment; why not outlaw the cutting of men's hair and beards? Or outlaw shellfish and pork?

There's three reasons why a person might focus their religious ire on gays. The person considers homosexuality to be a greater sin than most of the others listed in their book (despite there being no evidence in said book for that position), or the person genuinely does believe that all of these sins are equally bad but focuses on gays because they know that calling out the barbers and the guy who likes a nice rack of baby backs is gonna alienate a lot of people but knows that, like above, gays are an easy target. Either way, homophobe. Or alternately, it may be that the person would have no particular animosity toward gays on their own, but goes along with it because it is what they are taught. In that case, homophobia by proxy.

And lastly, the dumbest reason I've ever heard; that marriage laws are already equal. That gay people have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that straight people have. This ignores two things though. That if gay marriage were legal things would still be exactly equal; in addition to the above straight people would gain the exact same right to marry someone of their own gender that gay people have.

The short version is that a person who is for marriage in general, but against gay marriage is making a value judgement on those relationships. They are declaring that hetero marriage has more value to society than gay marriage. And, given that people's romantic/sexual preferences are such an enormous part of who they are, one cannot declare one type of relationship superior or inferior without branding the people who participate in it the same way.