Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage!

[FrekeChild]

Date: 10/10/2008 6:10:26 PM
Author: Black Jade

Date: 10/10/2008 5:39:56 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 10/10/2008 4:53:50 PM
Author: Black Jade
I am a history professor. I have studied the history of the family in the ancient world (Egypt, Greece, Rome) in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, and in Ancient and Modern Chinese. I have heard this theory that you are putting forth here, but never in historical works based on actual documents (which would be sort of scarce from the hunter-gatherer period, Hm?) This is a feminist theory with no basis in any verifiable facts (and no, I''m not against feminist, just against poorly supported theories).

Since, as you say, hunter gatherer societies produce no ''actual documents'', I can understand your difficulty in finding any historical works based on them. However, many historians observe modern hunter gatherer societies as do anthropologists, for clues as to how ancient hunter-gatherer societies behaved. What is your field of expertise in history?

Deborah

Chinese history and also French. But I am trained in ancient civilization and I teach that.

I am not, however, an anthropologist. So I am good with documents, in several ancient and modern languages, but not with ''clues.''

BJ (I don''t know that you''ll return, but I thought I''d chime in anyway) I want to first say that I am far from an expert on anything (well except baking) but I have never ever heard that marriage was created for the protection of women until reading your posts tonight. Which is funny to me because I am a psychology major, sociology minor with my concentration being on family and intimate relationships. I am also the daughter of a man who has been a divorce attorney for over 40 years. I have always read in my textbooks, academic articles, etc that marriage was created for economic (ex: workers on a farm) and peacekeeping (ex: royalty) reasons (which could both be attributed to Marx''s theories of controlling more means-land-of gaining economic means-money and more land), and this has been stated to me so many times by so many sources that I can''t even think of any specific ones, and have come to think of this as fact. So I''m left wondering where you got this information and if there is any truth in it. I tend to think that your beliefs are only part of an approved theory, honestly.

I have taken Psychology of Family, Psychology of Women, Psychology of Human Sexuality, Sociology of Gender, Social Control, Classical Sociological Theory, Social Psychology, and Sociology of Marriage, Family and Their Alternatives, among many others, so one would think that I would have come across this at some point. However, I have read numerous studies that have overwhelmingly shown that there are no differences in children that are raised by heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. As long as the child has two central stable family members (they don''t even have to be of the same generation, much less same race or same sex) they turn out as normal as any person can be. I would provide studies that support this, but my school''s library system seems to be down and I don''t really feel like putting effort into finding any on a Friday night.

Your reasoning that marriage was created for protection for women could be ascertained from the accepted theories, but it is pretty far fetching that it is the only reason, much less the main reason. However, it could be that it''s been maintained from the standpoint that women are the ones who are left vulnerable physically because of children and must be taken care of by their children''s father. But this is based on a biological need instead of a sociological one. It is my understanding that the commitment need from women for the support of a man has been around since we have been in existence.

However, this fails to make any sense for a same sex couple, because the man''s role in the primal family structure is to collect and provide resources, to protect woman and children, and another woman can do this just as well as a man. The same goes for gay male couples. One person is a caretaker and the other is provider/protector. The only actual need for heterosexual interaction is conception, and in our day and age, a man can walk into a sperm bank, make a deposit, and then a gay woman can make a withdrawal, and a child is conceived. So because of that, the sociological need for exclusive heterosexual marriage has lessened, which can also be due to women becoming independent and able to provide and protect on their own, there is also an increase of living together instead of marriage, single parent homes and homosexual unions.

Marriage is a sociological institution and as society changed, so too, shall marriage. I expect it to change in many more ways before the end of my lifetime. However, I do not expect that marriage between human adults and animals, children or siblings will ever be accepted socially, and therefore will not become legal or recognized as a sociological institution. And I expect that the definition for it will someday read: "Marriage is the legal union between two consenting adults."

 

[trillionaire]

Equal rights for everyone!

 

[swimmer]

Just watching the local news in Boston (four years of legal gay marriage with no problems) and all these lovely couples and their children in CT explaining what it means to them to get married finally...it brought tears to my eyes. Miracles and Freke would have been bawling. Two men with their adorable little adopted baby girl, making a family, what on earth can be wrong with that?

No one has explained what the problem is. Felons can marry (if they are old enough, and the animal comparison is patently offensive and the product of troubled minds) even Brittany Spears will probably get to try marriage a couple more times, but two very loving men or two in love women can''t have this choice. Why on earth not?

Thank you for your posts Black Jade, my dad is a retired history professor and I am now a lecturer in a very large history department; I''ve known many history professors, but never met one with your perspectives. Keep the discussion going, many of us are clearly still mystified, so do explain your point. But you are right in that I don''t think many of us will change our minds and seek to declare our friends and equals as somehow unworthy of a rite of passage that we hold so dear.

 

[galeteia]

On a general discussion note, in my classes on Women in the Ancient World, and Ancient Science and Technology, etc. it was put forth that marriage evolved at the beginning of the agricultural period as a way to monopolize and control women's offspring. Men could build up personal wealth to an extent not seen in the hunter-gatherer period, where the entire tribe would function essentially as a unit to ensure survival.

In order for men to be certain that the fruits of their labour were only benefiting the fruits of their own loins, it is believed that monogamous marriage became the norm at that time, because the only way to be certain of paternity in those time was to control the woman's sexual interactions.

Sure, a function of marriage in the historical world was to protect the woman, as it was the responsibility of her father and the men in her family to do so before she was married, and then her husband's in turn. But marriage in those times was more about control of reproduction, forming alliances, and distributing/controlling wealth. Women were not protected by marriage in the sense that in many civilizations they could be beaten, killed, raped, and/or abandoned by their husbands with little to no repercussions.

So the purpose of marriage was not so much to have children, but to control whose children your wife was producing.

What is interesting is how divorce was seen in many cultures before Christianity took hold; in many places it did not have a negative connotation. In fact, in Rome women were still under the dominion of their fathers even while married and under the dominion of their husbands, as the fathers could decide to divorce and remarry their daughters at whim for political reasons. The theme of children borne into politically opposing households and growing up bitter enemies is a recurring one in literature of that period.

In a primitive society, it is advantageous to have homosexual relatives as their resources will have no outlet (children of their own) and thus you are their 'heir' and enjoy the effect of having more than two parents providing for you. In some of the material I've read, it has been discussed whether the phenomenon of homosexuality in younger sons is an evolutionary trait to ensure the survival of their siblings' children.

 

[bee*]

Date: 10/10/2008 6:29:59 PM
Author: ladypirate
Gay marriage is not even remotely the same as incest, bestiality or pedophilia. There is a reason that an adult cannot marry a child (the child is not old enough to make that decision), that you cannot marry a dog (if a child has no say, the dog certainly doesn''t) and that two siblings cannot marry (genetic mutations). There is no reason that two consenting same-sex adults who want to make a legal commitment to each other should not be afforded the same rights they would be if they were of opposite genders.

I totally agree with this. Unfortunately I think that it will be a while before Gay Marriages become legal in Ireland. Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, whether it''s a woman and a man, two men or two women. The argument that a child needs a father and a mother, also doesn''t fly with me. Loving parents, no matter what sex, is what''s important, no matter the sex.

 

[miraclesrule]

Yeah, all these historical intention arguments are passe. Woman can now be governers of large states in America, have a stay at home Dad as the main caretaker while she brings home the bacon, she can bear her own arms and bring home more than the bacon, but whatever other animal meat she hunts and gathers...and she may be the next President of the United States.

I'm sure that wasn't possible back in the day marriage was first conceived.

Personally, I have always believed that "marriage", which by the way is just a word...anyway, I have always believed that "marriage" was more a religious and faith based "institution" with as many traditional variations as there are cultures around the globe. Civil Unions that ensure two people who love each other and wish to have the same rights gets my blessing.

I personally wish to separate marriage and civil unions as much as the founders wished to separate church and state. In many cultures, a couple needs two cermonies because of this difference. There are as many people who wish the religious connotation would be removed from "marriage" and we witness this a lot on BWW who struggle with this expectation from friends and family because they are agnostic or atheist.

Unfortunately, the government has yet again been tasked with the dismantling of the outdated intrusion and control of non-criminal and non-violent behavior of adults and their personal lives.

Maybe marriage needs go the way of the carriage. Maybe we can start saying "I'm engaged, I am getting Pair-ied" Whoohooo...I just made a new word... "Pairrage" Damn, I'm brilliant today. This will ensure it is just a pair and that nobody can extend pairrage to include more than two people.

btw: I am married to my job, is that legal?

 

[FrekeChild]

Oooo....interesting, Miracles...I''m sure someone somewhere has said, "What''s next? Multiple wives or husbands?" aka polygamy?

But we, as Americans, will likely never see polygamy here either because it is not approved of socially, and the majority of Americans are ensconced in Christian based theology, and that is where the "between a man and a woman" is really the norm, and anything other than that is frowned upon.

Hmmm....I''m going to go think about this for a while.

 

[MaggieB]

If BJ''s ridiculous theory were true,it doesn''t have a thing to do with modern marriage and I can''t imagine why we''re even discussing it. I don''t care if marriage originated in 4000 B.C. for the purpose of one person having someone at home to pick lice off their body, it has no relevance to today.

Couples today get married for a myriad of reasons - money, companionship, citizenship, and hopefully, most because they are deeply in love with one another. I know that I personally view marriage differently than my best friend. I believe that marriage is a sacred commitment between the couple and God, and a church wedding is very important to me. She sees marriage as more of a civil institution than a religious one. Whatever marriage means to the gay individual and however they choose to achieve it is THEIR right, THEIR choice, not mine or anyone else''s.

If there were only a way to get an amendment to ban bigots and hatemongers from breeding, that would be great.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/11/2008 4:02:40 PM
Author: MaggieB
If BJ's ridiculous theory were true,it doesn't have a thing to do with modern marriage and I can't imagine why we're even discussing it. I don't care if marriage originated in 4000 B.C. for the purpose of one person having someone at home to pick lice off their body, it has no relevance to today.

omg!! Muahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[galeteia]

Date: 10/11/2008 4:02:40 PM
Author: MaggieB
If BJ''s ridiculous theory were true,it doesn''t have a thing to do with modern marriage and I can''t imagine why we''re even discussing it. I don''t care if marriage originated in 4000 B.C. for the purpose of one person having someone at home to pick lice off their body, it has no relevance to today.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/11/2008 2:28:21 PM
Author: miraclesrule
Yeah, all these historical intention arguments are passe.

I agree that they are passé in the sense that they should not be able to inform us on our laws today. I have to admit that I find the discussions stimulating, though. I wish that I knew a lot more about social history in western Europe. It is too much to ask to know about marital customs throughout the entire world, so I would settle just to know about the heritage of our own civilization here in the United States (the civilizations that gave us our form of government and laws).

Deborah

 

[iheartscience]

For some reason my post wouldn't go through on my iPhone, but now that I'm back in town I had to say: Hooray for CT! I hope more states continue to legalize gay marriage!

As for your ill-informed and ridiculous posts, BlackJade, I can only suggest that you go and read a few more history books. I'm sure you have a lot of them since you're a history professor and all. (I'm guessing not a very good one since you don't seem know the basics like the historical basis for marriage, but that's neither here nor there).

But let me play along and agree with you that the basis for marriage was the protection of women because they are losing their "earning years" (even though historically women did not work outside the home). Even if that is the reason for marriage, why should that make a difference in the rights of gay couples to marry? What difference does it make? What harm does it do you? Or society? Your "reasons" and "historical" arguments are just not very thinly veiled bigotry.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 10/11/2008 2:40:35 PM
Author: FrekeChild
But we, as Americans, will likely never see polygamy here either because it is not approved of socially, and the majority of Americans are ensconced in Christian based theology, and that is where the ''between a man and a woman'' is really the norm, and anything other than that is frowned upon.

Some obvious questions shake out when you move the line off of one man one woman, of age, unrelated, as a marriage.

Polygamy is written about many times in the Bible, favorably I might add. Why isn''t it unfair to polygamists to exclude them from choosing to marry multiple people?
The same goes for brothers or sisters marrying. If two people really WANT to get married (let''s say the woman is post-menapausal to keep the biology out of it) why should society stop them? It''s just not fair! It''s not equal protection under the law.

Is it? I think not.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 10/12/2008 8:43:15 PM
Author: Rank Amateur

Date: 10/11/2008 2:40:35 PM

Author: FrekeChild

But we, as Americans, will likely never see polygamy here either because it is not approved of socially, and the majority of Americans are ensconced in Christian based theology, and that is where the ''between a man and a woman'' is really the norm, and anything other than that is frowned upon.

Some obvious questions shake out when you move the line off of one man one woman, of age, unrelated, as a marriage.

Polygamy is written about many times in the Bible, favorably I might add. Why isn''t it unfair to polygamists to exclude them from choosing to marry multiple people?

The same goes for brothers or sisters marrying. If two people really WANT to get married (let''s say the woman is post-menapausal to keep the biology out of it) why should society stop them? It''s just not fair! It''s not equal protection under the law.

Is it? I think not.

You lost me here. Are you comparing gay marriage to incest?

 

[FrekeChild]

Hmmm....I think Rank Amateur that you missed the part where I said "Marriage is a sociological institution."

Socially, polygamy is incredibly unpopular except for in extremist Mormon enclaves. We saw this earlier this year with the Mormon settlement in Texas.

As for polygamy being written about in the Bible (I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I know next to nothing about it) I can see how it might not be frowned upon THEN. But we are referring to American culture NOW, so that has no basis on the discussion.

Besides there are people like me who think of Christian theology in the same manner as Greek Mythology. I have to say though, that Greek Mythology is far more entertaining. (Are you going to add that in Greek Mythology that polygamy was A-ok? And therefore it strengthens your defense?)

And you'll note that my post about polygamy was in response to miracles' post on "Pairraige".

I maintain that marriage will be redefined as "A legal union between two consenting adults."

And for the foreseeable future, polygamy, incest and bestiality will remain on the outskirts of American society.

ETA: Thing2 I think what they were trying to say is that gay marriage opens the door for legalizing polygamy as well as the other things mentioned in here (incest, bestiality, etc).

 

[galeteia]

Date: 10/12/2008 10:08:07 PM
Author: FrekeChild
ETA: Thing2 I think what they were trying to say is that gay marriage opens the door for legalizing polygamy as well as the other things mentioned in here (incest, bestiality, etc).

Similarly ridiculous ''slippery slope'' claims were made about women and non-whites being granted the vote. I don''t know about you ladies, but I can assure you I have not turned into a husband-eating monster drunk on the power of being able to vote.

The issue with trying to compare gay marriage to bestiality and paedophilia is that gay marriage is no more exploitative that straight marriage, whereas that is clearly not the case in the latter two examples.

Exploitation is not a civil right. Marriage between two consenting adults should be.

 

[FrekeChild]

Well said Gala!

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 10/10/2008 6:06:59 PM
Author: Black Jade

Date: 10/10/2008 4:53:46 PM

Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 10/10/2008 4:48:50 PM

Author: Black Jade

Date: 10/10/2008 3:46:31 PM


Author: elledizzy5


Sorry, but I can''t wrap my head around actively denying rights to anyone in this country in the year 2008. It''s the saddest thing I''ve ever heard anyone defend.



People under 5 feet tall do have the right to play in the NBA, if they''re good enough. I''d love to see how it would go down if we started denying heterosexual couples the right to marry because the government determined their love wasnt good enough.



People are people. They all deserve protection. End of story.

Homosexuals do have the right to marry people of the opposite sex.


Which is what marriage is.


Please point out to me where I said that homosexuals weren''t people. OR that they didn''t deserve protection.

Actually, that first argument is exactly what the Supreme Court today decided was UNconstitutional. Do you think it does me any good to say that I *could* marry a man? For real? That is literally the same argument that racist people used to justify bans on interracial marriage before 1967, when the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriages legalized nationwide. At the time, people argued that Mr. Loving, a white man, was NOT being discriminated against because he *could* choose to marry a white woman. But he didn''t want to marry a white woman. He wanted to marry Mildred and she was black. He won that case, and just like is happening now when courts legalize same sex marriages, everyone freaked out about how our society is going to be in moral decay because the ''activist judges'' were overturning the ''natural order.''


This might be a good time for people to think about what they''re supporting. Would you advocate that interracial marriage be left up to the states to decide? That Mr. Loving should have sucked it up and chosen a parter who was white? That interracial marriage should be put up to popular vote? In 1967 there were many states in which racist populations would have GLADLY voted to oppress people based on race by denying them marriage rights. Which is exactly what they''re doing now to same sex couples.


ETA: ''which is what marriage is''

Yes, and marriage used to be ''a union between a man and woman of the same race.'' It evolved. Now people like you try to claim that the definition should remain ''between a man and a woman'' because it has always been that way. Well, besides the obvious historical fallacy there, it hasn''t always been that way at all. There were all sorts of caveats having to do with race and gender that we no longer have. We call that the ability of societies to change and adapt and grow to be more inclusive and enlightened rather than trying to live in the dark ages where oppressing people is thought to be a-okay.

Wishful, I wish you the best, but I don''t see how pointing out that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman is oppressing anybody. Or denying anyone rights. As I stated in my very first post, marriage is not a right. And it is not something that ''evolves''. The Loving case (which I am very well aware of) is not a good analogy. Mr. and Mrs. Loving were being denied rights that other men and women (that is, who were not related and who were of age to marry) were being granted. You are asking for new and unheard of ''rights'' that change the definition of marriage entirely. I think it is very reasonable to say that society as a whole should be allowed to vote on this as it is going to affect society as a whole.


Blacks and whites being forbidden to marry was not historically denied, either. It was denied in the US for a short period of time. IT was not denied in all human societies everywhere. Though, in the case of homosexual marriage, it is really strange to talk of ''denying'' something that is impossible. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman. You become more inclusive if you change that--but then again, it is no longer marriage. I do not think that it is becoming more enlightened. It certainly puts us on dangerous ground so far as the care of children is concerned.


You really cannot compare this issue to the racial issue, also, because the color of a person''s skin does not change, while people do change their sexual orientation. I have personally known people who have done this. You may not want to, and it is certainly your right not to. But the fact that it is possible makes it a bit different, doesn''t it, than being black, or white.


I don''t want to hurt your feelings, but I didn''t think that it was right to behave as if you were an elephant in the room and ignore what you were saying, since you have been brave enough to come forward and explain that this issue is personal to you (which must not be easy). I throught it was best to address you directly. You probably do not believe me when I say that I wish you well. However, this is true. However, I cannot change what I think is right because of you, nor do I think it is right not to express my point of view, as this issue is so important for society as a whole.


I do think that it happens a lot that someone makes a post like this one, saying isn''t such and such a thing great and everyone who agrees with it says, yes and everyone who doesn''t just avoids the subject. So everyone thinks that all agree and that there is only one side of the argument. And then people are surprised when it comes to a vote and they realize that actually the majority of people do not agree with this at all. But people who don''t agree are afraid to say. I think it''s better to say.


On a side note, I want to say that I grew up in New York and went to high school in the Village and since that time have had many homosexual friends. I remember the day (it''s not all that long ago) when a judge decided that people should not prosecuted for homosexuality and that seemed right and fair. I was happy about that. The dissenting judge that day said, Now the gates have been thrown open for homosexual marriage and I was so shocked that he would say that. I thought it was something he was saying just to scare people and to ''go back to the Dark Ages'' as you would put it. I didn''t want to be scared into denying people their rights, and people have a right to have a relationship and to not be prosecuted. But people don''t have a right to something that is not possible and that changes the whole definition of something.

Okay, someone, anyone, has got to explain this to me: "I think it is very reasonable to say that society as a whole should be allowed to vote on this as it is going to affect society as a whole."
I have two legitimate questions here.
a) How in the world would it affect society?
b) What makes you think it is constitutional for the majority of people in a democratic society to vote to deny a minority population civil rights? [I''ll give you a hint... NOT allowing a tyranny of the majority over the minority is a basic tenant of democracy.]

I am really, honestly, seriously, non-sarcastically [okay, well mostly

] curious to know how my getting married will affect ANYONE other than my partner and myself. Seriously. Who? And how?

My next question has to do with children. More specifically, the "care of children." What does marriage equality have to do with children? I''m not going to have kids. I wouldn''t have them no matter who I was with, and I won''t be making any with my partner, either, even though there are a multitude of viable options which could facilitate that process should we so wish to pursue it. Furthermore, for gay couples that DO have children [I know several couples who do, and several people I know have same sex parents], how would it negatively affect them if their parents were married rather than unmarried? Other than the VERY obvious *positive* effect of having rights as a family unit. The emotional stress of not being married and knowing that if something happened to one of their parents the other parent may not be able to obtain custody of the child in court is intense. I don''t know about you, but I think that''s pretty F-ed up.

All of this is a moot point, though, because experts on the subject, not limited to but certainly including the American Psychological Association, have found that being raised by same sex parents has no effect, either positive or negative, on a child''s well-being. The APA, which is NOT historically a gay-friendly institution, by the way, went so far as to submit an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in favor of legalizing same sex marriages EXPLICITLY FOR the benefit of children of gay couples.

Moving on. If you won''t entertain parallel arguments between same sex marriage and interracial marriage, I can give you another analogy. However, I will say that the really important part of the analogy, which is the CONSTITUTIONAL question, is an almost perfect fit between the two examples. Legally speaking, the same principles can be applied. That doesn''t mean you have to LIKE the conclusion that is drawn there, but that doesn''t make it any less legally correct. If you want to advocate that people "change" their sexual orientation [I find fault with this, but I''ll address it as you stated it], we can compare sexuality to religion. After all, I know a number of people who have converted to different religions throughout their lifetimes. They were ALWAYS protected from religiously-based discrimination, no matter what religion they *CHOSE*. So what you''re telling me here is that one set of *choices* is more deserving than [what you characterize as] another set of *choices*? And why, exactly, am I supposed to think that your logic, your beliefs, your frame of moral reference, is correct? Why should I be forced to accept that?

Look, I am not asking anyone to change their point of view. You can go right on believing that my marriage is morally wrong, or even that according to your own, personal beliefs and frame of reference that it is meaningless, or evil, or flawed, or whatever you want. I am asking for something very basic, which is a piece of paper that allows me the same rights that every other American is granted. Since my obtaining a marriage license has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with me, I fail to see why you, or anyone else, should be involved in my decision to get married. Name for me one, only one, reason why same sex couples should not marry that can apply to someone who does not take your personal morals and beliefs as their own guidelines in life. Your beliefs are not more valuable than mine. Having arguably more people agree with your position than with mine doesn''t make you right and me wrong. Geez, most people believed slavery ought to be legal when it was abolished. You can say whatever you want in terms of your desire to "wish me well," but if I find that statement to be completely disingenuous, please don''t blame me for that. I''m glad you chose to respond to my post instead of ignoring me entirely, but your response is lacking in any substantial form of logical reasoning. You''ve stated your beliefs and I have stated mine. We disagree, which is fine, but that doesn''t give you the right to control my life decisions.

When it comes down to it, your "well wishes," or Sarah Pailin''s [token] "Gay Friend" isn''t going to help me one bit if the person I am going to spend the rest of my life with is hospitalized and I am unable to see her in her last moments of life because of people like you who do not think my love is worth as much as yours is. There are over 1,000 rights that I will NOT have access to without marriage, and a lot of them have real, scary consequences. I spend a lot of time thinking about them, and it terrifies me. I am not trying to be harsh here, but it''s impossible for me to understand why you think you have the right to tell me I can''t enter into a legal contract with another consenting adult just because you said so.

As for Rank Amateur''s comments... I''ve addressed them several times already in previous threads, and I''m not up for another round. Anyone who wants to see them can check out the CA marriage equality thread. Let it be sufficient to note that I am one person, as is my fiance, which makes two of us asking to marry one another. Neither of us are forks, chairs, or another inanimate objects. Neither of us are hamsters, rabbits, or any other type of animal. We are both adults. We are unrelated. Until we''re actually discussing polygamy, it''s rather off-topic to bring it up, don''t you think? As for the other implications, unfortunately for the "moral panic" police none of them would be possible until major changes have been introduced to United States law, most notably, the definition of who is able to enter into a legally binding contract. If at some point it is decided that animals, children, and objects are able to make their own informed decisions about such things, we can address them then.

 

[iheartscience]

Wow, Wishful, so well said! You are much more eloquent than I could ever be on the topic! I just get all riled up! You said *exactly* what I think about gay marriage, but obviously you said it a lot better than I could!

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 10/13/2008 12:50:46 AM
Author: thing2of2
Wow, Wishful, so well said! You are much more eloquent than I could ever be on the topic! I just get all riled up! You said *exactly* what I think about gay marriage, but obviously you said it a lot better than I could!

Thanks, thing2! I''ve got to say, though, if "all riled up" doesn''t describe me on this issue, I''m not sure what does.

All I can think about is CA right now, and wedding planning while wondering if you can even get a marriage license is bittersweet at best, and downright heartbreaking at worst.

I''m excited about CT, though, and, well... what''s 47 more states, right? Hah. I try to keep reminding myself that more progress has been made in the area of marriage equality than most people ever would have dreamed of less than 8 years ago. Sometimes, though, "it will happen eventually!" or "it might even happen in our lifetimes!" are less than encouraging. Well duh it will happen eventually, but it won''t help me if I''m dead!

 

[miraclesrule]

Wishful: I think I am a well rounded individual and I was the product of a divorced family and spent my time between a male homosexual interracial couple and a devout catholic Mom with an ex-military Texas Man....

I think that I am more grounded than some of the loons that I am forced to associate with in the corporate world who may or may not have been raised in a traditional dysfunctional heterosexual family (is there such a thing as a non-dysfunctional family?)

The arguments over same sex couples raising children is a "hot topic" for me. It takes a community, whether that be same sex, opposite sex, or single parent. It is the love, nurturing, maturity and devotion to parenting that matters, not the sexual orientation of the parents. I am very sure that no family ever was or ever will be Ward and June Cleaver. But some people would rather ignore the fact that children are often more scarred by the dysfunction of a traditional bad marriage than admit that a functional same sex couple is more than capable of rearing a child more successfully than other traditional couples.

It's the whole "labeling" of an entire group vs. the individual ignorant mentality of narrow minded folk that believe these crazy points of view. But I don't blame them....they probably don't have a frame of reference to expand their view points.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/13/2008 12:43:31 AM
Author: WishfulThinking


There are over 1,000 rights that I will NOT have access to without marriage, and a lot of them have real, scary consequences. I spend a lot of time thinking about them, and it terrifies me.

(snip)

As for Rank Amateur's comments... I've addressed them several times already in previous threads, and I'm not up for another round. Anyone who wants to see them can check out the CA marriage equality thread. Let it be sufficient to note that I am one person, as is my fiance, which makes two of us asking to marry one another. Neither of us are forks, chairs, or another inanimate objects. Neither of us are hamsters, rabbits, or any other type of animal. We are both adults. We are unrelated. Until we're actually discussing polygamy, it's rather off-topic to bring it up, don't you think? As for the other implications, unfortunately for the 'moral panic' police none of them would be possible until major changes have been introduced to United States law, most notably, the definition of who is able to enter into a legally binding contract. If at some point it is decided that animals, children, and objects are able to make their own informed decisions about such things, we can address them then.

Hi, Wishful, I just wanted to tell you that I loved waking up to find your posting. It was, as usual, so thoughtful and inspiring. I love it that you are so in love. My own marriage has always been difficult and our struggles with a child with problems has made it worse. I do not know if it will hang together much longer. And we have already made it for over 31 and 1/2 years, struggling all the way. I really believed in the institution of marriage. I think that always trying to work out my marriage "the old fashioned way" may have harmed my daughter. This is off-topic, of course, except to say that I do not know if old-fashioned marriages are good. And your marriage to the woman you love sounds wonderful.

Love,
Deb

 

[MoonWater]

Wishful

That post was awesome! Would you mind if I copy and paste it. I know of at least one person I would just love to read it to if he EVER tries to get into an argument with me over gay marriage again. I love the religion analogy too! Never thought of that one before.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/13/2008 2:19:46 AM
Author: miraclesrule
Wishful: I think I am a well rounded individual and I was the product of a divorced family and spent my time between a male homosexual interracial couple and a devout catholic Mom with an ex-military Texas Man....


I think that I am more grounded than some of the loons that I am forced to associate with in the corporate world who may or may not have been raised in a traditional dysfunctional heterosexual family (is there such a thing as a non-dysfunctional family?)


The arguments over same sex couples raising children is a ''hot topic'' for me. It takes a community, whether that be same sex, opposite sex, or single parent. It is the love, nurturing, maturity and devotion to parenting that matters, not the sexual orientation of the parents. I am very sure that no family ever was or ever will be Ward and June Cleaver. But some people would rather ignore the fact that children are often more scarred by the dysfunction of a traditional bad marriage than admit that a functional same sex couple is more than capable of rearing a child more successfully than other traditional couples.


It''s the whole ''labeling'' of an entire group vs. the individual ignorant mentality of narrow minded folk that believe these crazy points of view. But I don''t blame them....they probably don''t have a frame of reference to expand their view points.

I think you may have touched on one of the real issues. People fear that gay couples will do a better job at raising their kids than they (heterosexual couples) will and suddenly they will feel inadequate in comparison.

 

[SandraPaneczko]

I have to disagree. If people want to marry within their same sex, that''s their deal but god should be left out of it. There is no getting around what the bible says and there are some who don''t even believe in the bible, this is America and our country is all about freedom and making our own choices but like I said, God will not bless or recognize a marriage between two women or two men.'' I think the problem is homosexuals want to be able to enter into the same marriage as a man and a women and that''s just not possible. Two men can''t stand in a church and make those same vows under god. Maybe by law or something like that would work.
Just my opinion

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/13/2008 6:25:33 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 10/13/2008 12:43:31 AM
Author: WishfulThinking


There are over 1,000 rights that I will NOT have access to without marriage, and a lot of them have real, scary consequences. I spend a lot of time thinking about them, and it terrifies me.

(snip)

As for Rank Amateur''s comments... I''ve addressed them several times already in previous threads, and I''m not up for another round. Anyone who wants to see them can check out the CA marriage equality thread. Let it be sufficient to note that I am one person, as is my fiance, which makes two of us asking to marry one another. Neither of us are forks, chairs, or another inanimate objects. Neither of us are hamsters, rabbits, or any other type of animal. We are both adults. We are unrelated. Until we''re actually discussing polygamy, it''s rather off-topic to bring it up, don''t you think? As for the other implications, unfortunately for the ''moral panic'' police none of them would be possible until major changes have been introduced to United States law, most notably, the definition of who is able to enter into a legally binding contract. If at some point it is decided that animals, children, and objects are able to make their own informed decisions about such things, we can address them then.

Hi, Wishful, I just wanted to tell you that I loved waking up to find your posting. It was, as usual, so thoughtful and inspiring. I love it that you are so in love. My own marriage has always been difficult and our struggles with a child with problems has made it worse. I do not know if it will hang together much longer. And we have already made it for over 31 and 1/2 years, struggling all the way. I really believed in the institution of marriage. I think that always trying to work out my marriage ''the old fashioned way'' may have harmed my daughter. This is off-topic, of course, except to say that I do not know if old-fashioned marriages are good. And your marriage to the woman you love sounds wonderful.

Love,
Deb

Just a comment Deb. Big hug to you. I know SO many many couples like you and your husband, who are long "married" but living lives of quiet desperation, for any number of reasons. I have no advice, no answers, and I''m sure you weren''t looking for any. But I do have immense compassion for people in your situation. Every choice we make exacts a price, and it is so hard to tell when that price becomes too high. Whatever happens I wish you peace always.

 

[swimmer]

Date: 10/13/2008 8:39:14 AM
Author: SandraPaneczko
I have to disagree. If people want to marry within their same sex, that''s their deal but god should be left out of it. There is no getting around what the bible says and there are some who don''t even believe in the bible, this is America and our country is all about freedom and making our own choices but like I said, God will not bless or recognize a marriage between two women or two men.'' I think the problem is homosexuals want to be able to enter into the same marriage as a man and a women and that''s just not possible. Two men can''t stand in a church and make those same vows under god. Maybe by law or something like that would work.

Just my opinion

Fair enough, but isn''t that up to the officiant that they choose to perform the ceremony? For example, no Catholic Priest who is recognized by the Vatican is going to marry two men or two women. The Catholic Church and all other organizations that have decided as an organization to not grant that sacrament or rite to homosexuals can not be forced to do so by governmental legislation. Homosexuals will have to seek out religious officiants who agree with their desires if they want to be married within a faith. The state is just providing the legal ability to marry, not the religious aspect. The thing is, in some places, like my state, homosexual marriage is exactly what you say is not possible. Homosexuals can marry in churches, like the Unitarians and some Methodist and Anglican churches, and some have started their own churches. Or if they are both Jews, Reform Rabbis will marry them, but not if they are not both Jews. This shows again how it is the houses of worship''s perogative. The churches/mosques/temples get to decide who they will marry. The law of the state does not change that. So you are correct, the law works, but the churches do not have to participate if they do not want to.

 

[SandraPaneczko]

Like I said before, This is America and I think people should have the choice. For Example.. Abortion, I am totally against it for religious reasons but not everyone in this country is religious and not everyone believes in good. I don''t think its right but does that mean you should stop someone who thinks there is nothing wrong with it? Gay Marriage.....My brother In law is Gay so I understand and this is what I tell him:

I don''t think your lifestyle is what god intended for us but I love you and I will treat whoever you choose to be with no different. I don''t agree with the lifestyle but that''s not my part to judge or to condemn anybody. The bible also say to treat others the way you want to be treated.

I think that Gay couples should be able to have some options, options that will give them health benefits from their partners job(they are living together right) and making medical decisions for one another. Being recognized beneficiaries/partners but as far as god goes... leave him out because he wants no part and I think that''s only fair. Most Gay people clearly don''t believe in the bible or it wouldn''t matter that they shouldn''t have the same institute as man and women and if any do then they would understand why they can''t. Any person who calls them self a priest should never marry a gay couple. It should not be done in a church of god. If they have their own organizations that has nothing to do with God or twisting the bible then let someone within there own unite them.

 

[E B]

Well said, Wishful!

 

[galeteia]

There are many things that are no longer appropriate to take literally from the bible, such as women who braid their hair being prostitutes.

I am not religious. We were married in a civil ceremony and yet still have all the rights and privileges of marriage. I do not see why the religion of some individuals should impact my right to get married, and since Wishful is also a responsible citizen whose marriage will not impact anyone else save her wife, I do not see why those religious individuals should suddenly have a say in her marriage and not mine.

Like Dan Savage says: "Don''t approve of gay marriage? Don''t have one. Don''t approve of abortion? Don''t have one."

When put that way, it does make it very, very simple.