When will (not should) America legalize gay marriage?

[E B]

Of course you can disagree with my statement but there are plenty of people who have made articulate, cogent, SECULAR arguments against SSM.

See, I've yet to hear one. If you have, please, bring them to this thread.

 

[Maisie]

I have to say things have changed a lot since this video was being shown... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3S24ofEQj4&feature=related

 

[gem_anemone]

Looks like a David Letterman Top Twelve to me. Funny, somewhat. Serious, not.

Can we at least talk without hyperbole, drama, gauntlet throwing, name calling, sterotyping, and attempts at skewering humor? Let's leave the flaming head emoties out of it as well.

I see that you are deflecting from the true point of what I was saying, therefore it would be impossible to have a further discussion. Humorous or not, the message is clear. I can reword my concept to fit your tastes, but I won't because I don't have all day.

 

[gem_anemone]

There's a HUGE misconception that if you have a problem with same sex marriage you therefore "hate" gays and oppose what they do, even in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. The reason it is NOT a misconception that people against gay marriage DO hate gays is because any "reasons" they give against gay marriage do not hold any merit.

Says you. (And yes, others too)

But that doesn't make it so.

Of course you can disagree with my statement but there are plenty of people who have made articulate, cogent, SECULAR arguments against SSM.

If being against SSM means a person is a bigot then I guess the president "HATED" gays too?? (Until last week anyway).

I also know several gay men whose loved ones are against SMM who do NOT feel "hated" by them and understand the VAST difference between a person being against re-defining the institution of marriage and being "hateful".

Please link to one of your articulate, cogent, secular arguments against SSM as I would like to hear it.

Ok...just because you say something doesn't make it so either. (We can do this all day)

Whether or not I think the President was a bigot or not has no weight in this discussion.

I feel sorry for your gay acquaintances to have to deal with said "loved" ones. I have gay friends who simply don't talk about these issues with their bigoted family members and friends because it's easier to keep the peace and hold on to familiar relationships than it is to exhaustively try and convince them of the err of their ways. It's sad that they have to go their whole lives facing their loved ones while knowing how they truly feel.

 

[HollyS]

Looks like a David Letterman Top Twelve to me. Funny, somewhat. Serious, not.

Can we at least talk without hyperbole, drama, gauntlet throwing, name calling, sterotyping, and attempts at skewering humor? Let's leave the flaming head emoties out of it as well.

I see that you are deflecting from the true point of what I was saying, therefore it would be impossible to have a further discussion. Humorous or not, the message is clear. I can reword my concept to fit your tastes, but I won't because I don't have all day.

I understand the TRUE point of your comments - - even listed with snarky snipey humor.

I might even agree here or there.

But I stopped reading half way down . . . because . . . what I don't care for is the underlying contempt for anyone who might dare to not see this issue exactly your way.

So, you see, even if I understand what you mean, I might choose not to hear if you prefer your method of communicating.

 

[beebrisk]

Looks like a David Letterman Top Twelve to me. Funny, somewhat. Serious, not.

Can we at least talk without hyperbole, drama, gauntlet throwing, name calling, sterotyping, and attempts at skewering humor? Let's leave the flaming head emoties out of it as well.

I see that you are deflecting from the true point of what I was saying, therefore it would be impossible to have a further discussion. Humorous or not, the message is clear. I can reword my concept to fit your tastes, but I won't because I don't have all day.

I understand the TRUE point of your comments - - even listed with snarky snipey humor.

I might even agree here or there.

But I stopped reading half way down . . . because . . . what I don't care for is the underlying contempt for anyone who might dare to not see this issue exactly your way.

So, you see, even if I understand what you mean, I might choose not to hear if you prefer your method of communicating.

Isn't it always the way?? The ones who are first to call everyone else "intolerant" or "bigoted" are the ones who won't stop for even a moment to consider anyone else's viewpoint and can seemingly defend their own only with snark, contempt and ad-homonyms. Doesn't exactly make for a compelling argument, that's for sure.

 

[sillyberry]

For those here interested in judicial behavior and social change, I recommend The Hollow Hope by Gerald Rosenberg. (disclaimer: former professor of mine). Highly controversial among his fellow liberal colleagues -- the basic thesis is that the Court has harmed, rather than helped, progressive social change -- but a really interesting read.

 

[E B]

Isn't it always the way?? The ones who are first to call everyone else "intolerant" or "bigoted" are the ones who won't stop for even a moment to consider anyone else's viewpoint and can seemingly defend their own only with snark, contempt and ad-homonyms. Doesn't exactly make for a compelling argument, that's for sure.

On the previous page, I asked (snark-free!) for these "articulate, cogent, SECULAR arguments against same sex marriage" you've seen, so let's see them. I'm truly curious.

 

[beebrisk]

Isn't it always the way?? The ones who are first to call everyone else "intolerant" or "bigoted" are the ones who won't stop for even a moment to consider anyone else's viewpoint and can seemingly defend their own only with snark, contempt and ad-homonyms. Doesn't exactly make for a compelling argument, that's for sure.

On the previous page, I asked (snark-free!) for these "articulate, cogent, SECULAR arguments against same sex marriage" you've seen, so let's see them. I'm truly curious.

Nope.

If you've noticed, I haven't given my views on SSM and I'm not here to discuss them. The reason I brought it up and the thing that I find so disturbing about this whole thread is the notion that if you don't agree with changing the definition of traditional marriage you are a bigot, a hater, intolerant, and basically....evil.

I argued that idea. I've not argued gay marriage.

If I were to post those essays here, they would immediately be attributed to me and I'd be in a position to defend the words of others. I have no interest in doing so. Whether I agree with the statements or not isn't the point. I'm simply trying to make it understood that calling people names for wanting to uphold a social construct in place for a few thousand years is as intolerant and bigoted as what you claim to be fighting against.

I'm sorry that you don't think it's possible to love someone and still believe in the sanctity of a traditional marriage. I can assure you there are those that do and they (and their gay family members) would take great umbrage at your judgement of them.

The material I mentioned is readily available to anyone who is interested. If you stay away from incendiary blog posts (and most of the internet for that matter) they can be found.

 

[E B]

I'm sorry that you don't think it's possible to love someone and still believe in the sanctity of a traditional marriage. I can assure you there are those that do and they (and their gay family members) would take great umbrage at your judgement of them.

Who is this directed toward? Certainly not me, unless you're assuming.

If I were to post those essays here, they would immediately be attributed to me and I'd be in a position to defend the words of others. I have no interest in doing so. Whether I agree with the statements or not isn't the point. I'm simply trying to make it understood that calling people names for wanting to uphold a social construct in place for a few thousand years is as intolerant and bigoted as what you claim to be fighting against.

Fair enough. Post them anyway. It isn't fair to claim they exist and then ask us to wade through the muck to find them. You've made your position clear, and I know I'm not the only one eager to read these articulate, cogent, SECULAR arguments against SSM (that should be in no way attributed to or discussed with you).

 

[Pandora II]

The idea of banning gay marriage because we need to procreate is hilarious.

Will opposite-sex couples sudddenly think 'blooming heck, these gay people got to have a wedding, well we're not going to have any kids' '?

Or will lots of gay couples think 'darn, I can't have a wedding so sorry we'd better give up playing at being gay and get hitched to someone of the opposite-sex and start breeding'?

I am very, very confused as to this logic...

Or is it that people think that if you legalise same sex marriage that younger members of society might suddenly think it might be, gasp, NORMAL, and decide that they are going to be gay too?

I was at my nephews 2nd birthday party a couple of month's ago. Amongst the guests were 4 sets of gay parents - 3 lesbian couples who had conceived via IVF and a gay couple who had adopted. One of the lesbian couples was pregnant with their 2nd child... so they've already had double the number of kids I have.

Same-sex couples are jointly recognised as parents on birth certificates.

I am absolutely gobsmacked by some of the "arguments" against gay marriage on this thread. I'd think it was trolling if I didn't know better.

Fortunately we have had civil partnerships in the UK since 2004, and the government has stated that there will be full equality in having a 'marriage' rather than just a 'civil partnership' before the next general election in 2015.

Since 2009, the Quakers in the UK have recognised same-sex and opposite-sex marriages equally and are happy to conduct ceremonies (and have asked the government to recognise them in law). The Archbishop of Wales, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Bishop of Buckingham and the Dean of St Albans have also voiced their support. Plenty of vicars already conduct blessings for gay couples who are practising.

 

[Maria D]

I'm wondering what is the difference between "civil partnership" or "civil union" and "married?" I really am not sure and it's probably different under different jurisdictions. IMO, a government recognized "marriage" that confers all the rights and responsibilities of a married couple should be a civil union. This should be available to all couples, same or opposite sex. Then if you want to have your coupledom blessed by a religious establishment, fine, but legally recognized marriage should be a function of government. Kind of like the difference between a birth certificate and record of baptism -- one is proof of citizenship and the other is between you and your church and has nothing to do with country.

Then, if some people want to consider a civilly unioned same sex couple as not being really married because they feel it doesn't fit their definition, fine, but they wouldn't be able to deny that couple any rights that all other civilly unioned couples that do fit their marriage definition have.

 

[HollyS]

I'm wondering what is the difference between "civil partnership" or "civil union" and "married?" I really am not sure and it's probably different under different jurisdictions. IMO, a government recognized "marriage" that confers all the rights and responsibilities of a married couple should be a civil union. This should be available to all couples, same or opposite sex. Then if you want to have your coupledom blessed by a religious establishment, fine, but legally recognized marriage should be a function of government. Kind of like the difference between a birth certificate and record of baptism -- one is proof of citizenship and the other is between you and your church and has nothing to do with country.

Then, if some people want to consider a civilly unioned same sex couple as not being really married because they feel it doesn't fit their definition, fine, but they wouldn't be able to deny that couple any rights that all other civilly unioned couples that do fit their marriage definition have.

Ah, well, there is this theory that that would be a 'separate but equal' solution, and it isn't what the gay community wants. If there is a legal way to join two people together, with all rights intact and protected, I'm not sure why what we call it is important, as long as it exists.

I think the U.S. has the most problem with this concept (of redefining marriage) because we are fully able to be married by a religious institution or clergy, without first having a civil ceremony (i.e.Europe). You still need a license, but it's legal if conducted solely by clergy, or any properly recognized officiant in lieu of a government official. So perhaps we are more inclined, than not, to view 'marriage' from a religious and sacramental standpoint, rather than as a legally binding union??

And, no, that's not to say that gay couples cannot view marriage as sacramental. Nor does it mean that all straights leave the altar after the wedding and proceed to live a covenant relationship with their spouse. It isn't a point to be debated, really; just merely an observation.

 

[Maria D]

Ah, well, there is this theory that that would be a 'separate but equal' solution, and it isn't what the gay community wants.

What I'm suggesting wouldn't be "separate but equal," just equal. In other words, a marriage performed by clergy between same sex persons wouldn't count as legal marriage. That couple would have to have a certificate issued by a government entity same as any other couple.

 

[kenny]

Two different names are not the same.
They are different.
Gays would feel they got a name that is less-respected in the eyes of society.
We've had enough of that, thank you.
It would be like we are grudging being told, "All right, you can ride in this bus but you gotta sit in the back."

And a "civil service" does today take place at today's straight church weddings.
It is the 10 seconds required for the two to sign their state's marriage certificate/license.
It is during those 10 seconds that the government IS marrying, civilly uniting, legally recognizing, or whatever you want to call it, the two.

If a religion A believes it is the one true religion it does not recognize even straight married people outside their religion, they are free to add gay married people to their list of people heading for, uhm, that other place down there.

Like I said before I think churches' beliefs must remain respected.

 

[Maria D]

Two different names are not the same.
They are different.
Gays would feel they got a name that is less-respected in the eyes of society.
We've had enough of that, thank you.
It would be like we are grudging being told, "All right, you can ride in this bus but you gotta sit in the back."

And a "civil service" does today take place at today's straight church weddings.
It is the 10 seconds required for the two to sign their state's marriage certificate/license.
It is during those 10 seconds that the government IS marrying, civilly uniting, legally recognizing, or whatever you want to call it, the two.

If a religion A believes it is the one true religion it does not recognize even straight married people outside their religion, they are free to add gay married people to their list of people heading for, uhm, that other place down there.

Like I said before I think churches' beliefs must remain respected.

I don't think I'm being clear. In the eyes of the state, *everyone* would get the option of civil union ONLY. So that 10 seconds that straight couples now spend signing a piece of paper would be all that counts as far as legality is concerned, and the signing would be done in a government office. A religious wedding could still take place but it would have no meaning at all to the state. All couples, same and opposite sex, would sign the SAME piece of paper and the state would recognize all with this document as having the same legally coupled status. Individual couples decide for themselves what they want to call the person with whom they are in a civil union: spouse, husband, wife, partner, whatever. Religious establishments decide for themselves what marriage within their religious context means.

An analogy comes to mind. A child is born to a Catholic couple and another child is born to an atheist couple. Both children get birth certificates that serve as proof of citizenship and both have the rights and responsibilities of citizens. The state pays absolutely no attention to the fact that the atheist child is not baptized, that child has the same rights as any other citizen. The church, on the other hand, may refuse certain things to that child, like a Catholic wedding.

I hope I am making some sense!

 

[kenny]

Two different names are not the same.
They are different.
Gays would feel they got a name that is less-respected in the eyes of society.
We've had enough of that, thank you.
It would be like we are grudging being told, "All right, you can ride in this bus but you gotta sit in the back."

And a "civil service" does today take place at today's straight church weddings.
It is the 10 seconds required for the two to sign their state's marriage certificate/license.
It is during those 10 seconds that the government IS marrying, civilly uniting, legally recognizing, or whatever you want to call it, the two.

If a religion A believes it is the one true religion it does not recognize even straight married people outside their religion, they are free to add gay married people to their list of people heading for, uhm, that other place down there.

Like I said before I think churches' beliefs must remain respected.

I don't think I'm being clear. In the eyes of the state, *everyone* would get the option of civil union ONLY. So that 10 seconds that straight couples now spend signing a piece of paper would be all that counts as far as legality is concerned, and the signing would be done in a government office. A religious wedding could still take place but it would have no meaning at all to the state. All couples, same and opposite sex, would sign the SAME piece of paper and the state would recognize all with this document as having the same legally coupled status. Individual couples decide for themselves what they want to call the person with whom they are in a civil union: spouse, husband, wife, partner, whatever. Religious establishments decide for themselves what marriage within their religious context means.

An analogy comes to mind. A child is born to a Catholic couple and another child is born to an atheist couple. Both children get birth certificates that serve as proof of citizenship and both have the rights and responsibilities of citizens. The state pays absolutely no attention to the fact that the atheist child is not baptized, that child has the same rights as any other citizen. The church, on the other hand, may refuse certain things to that child, like a Catholic wedding.

I hope I am making some sense!

Sure, if everyone got 'civilly united' that would be great.
That would be equality for all.

But a problem I anticipate with that is language.
How would you stop people from using the term 'marriage' and get John and Sally to tell everyone they got civilly-united in the spring?
What if this straight couple slips and say they got married in the spring?
Would the newly-formed language-police issue fines?
Jail time, for second offenses?

The word marriage and its usage are firmly ingrained, even when the married people have nothing to do any religion.

This is why I think just adding gay people to the list of people who can get married and keeping the term 'marriage' is the fair and practical solution.
All religions will get to view gay married people however they want just like they currently view people, single or married straight or gay, who are not members.

 

[Maria D]

John and Sally can go right ahead and say they are married, just as Susie and Nancy can! If someone doesn't wish to recognize Susie and Nancy as truly "married," what can you do? But as far as actual legal status is concerned, both couples have the rights and responsibilities of a couple in a civil union because that's all there is. Tax break for married couples? That would become a tax break for those in a civil union. Spouse as legal next of kin becomes partner in a civil union as next of kin.

I think it should be like this:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4196/forget_marriagecivil_unions_for_all/

 

[Imdanny]

The reason I brought it up and the thing that I find so disturbing about this whole thread is the notion that if you don't agree with changing the definition of traditional marriage you are a bigot

I don't know what to say about this. Too bad, so sad? Denying that civil law under the Constitution applies to black people equals bigotry. Denying that civil law under the Constitution applies to gay people equals bigotry. Then we hear the "gays aren't a minority" line. Yes, they are. I could give you the social science definition showing that they are. I could give you the history showing that they are. But no rational argument is going to convince people who insist on clinging to ignorance, fear, and prejudice. I finding it really amusing how people who are not affected by a society's prejudice are so sure about what prejudice is and what it isn't. I'd like to use a rolling eyes emoticon but I'll restrain myself.

 

[justginger]

I generally try to stay away from these discussions...because I just can't comprehend the other side of the coin, so to speak. DH is always poking fun at me, telling me I'm the biggest straight champion for gay marriage in the whole of Australia.

First, to address the same thing as Danny, it is not a matter of opinion, this use of the term 'bigot.' It is a matter of dictionary definition. A bigot is one who is so intolerantly devoted to their own opinions that they then exhibit animosity or prejudice towards members of other groups. By denying gay individuals their LEGAL right to be married, one is being a bigot. It is not a matter of opinion, but definition.

And to address the issue of civil ceremony versus wedding, I totally get what Maria is saying and agree completely. What I picture being the ideal solution is:

EVERYONE is MARRIED by the government, by filling out that paperwork wherever you choose to do so.
If you then choose to have a church ceremony, you are more than free to do so. We need a new definition of this church ceremony result though. You no longer get MARRIED in a church, you get MARRIED by the government. Perhaps you get TIED, you get BLESSED, you get SEALED in a church? Whatever it is, what happens to you in the church LEGALLY is not MARRIED. It is something else that you elect to do, and has no bearing on your legal couplehood status. Of course heterosexuals would probably still just call it getting married (despite the fact that more than 50% of marriages are now held outside of a religious center), because for them both parts would be carried out simultaneously.

Would this be an appropriate solution to you, Kenny?

 

[kenny]

John and Sally can go right ahead and say they are married, just as Susie and Nancy can! If someone doesn't wish to recognize Susie and Nancy as truly "married," what can you do? But as far as actual legal status is concerned, both couples have the rights and responsibilities of a couple in a civil union because that's all there is. Tax break for married couples? That would become a tax break for those in a civil union. Spouse as legal next of kin becomes partner in a civil union as next of kin.

I think it should be like this:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4196/forget_marriagecivil_unions_for_all/

Thanks, interesting read Maria.

While I agree with much of what he says, I do not agree that close relatives of opposite sex should be allowed to marry because of potential genetic harm to offspring.

 

[Lotus99]

To be frank, the only reason I got married was so I could have the legal framework in place if I were to split from my partner, if he were to be in hospital or if he were to die. I don't want his family swooping in if he dies and kicking me out of the house and taking our money because we weren't married. I don't want the same to happen to him. I want to be able to make decisions about his health is he is unable to. I want to get my fair share if we split up.

And, I want the same thing for gay people, if they want to marry.

Sure, you can draw up paperwork with a lawyer to deal with these situations, but it costs a few thousand dollars. Getting married costs less than $100 and ties it all up in a neat package.

I'd say the government seems to be ahead of the game when it comes to these things. We have legal equality for women and people of color. This doesn't mean that discrimination has gone away. You'll still find people who don't want a white woman marrying or dating a black man. Most people won't voice that opinion (although some will) because they know many in society have moved on from those kinds of thoughts. So, I say, let's grant equality for same-sex couples and let society catch up in 70 or 80 years.

 

[kenny]

So, I say, let's grant equality for same-sex couples and let society catch up in 70 or 80 years.

Very well put.

 

[Imdanny]

I generally try to stay away from these discussions...because I just can't comprehend the other side of the coin, so to speak. DH is always poking fun at me, telling me I'm the biggest straight champion for gay marriage in the whole of Australia.

Gold star for you, justginger!

First, to address the same thing as Danny, it is not a matter of opinion, this use of the term 'bigot.' It is a matter of dictionary definition. A bigot is one who is so intolerantly devoted to their own opinions that they then exhibit animosity or prejudice towards members of other groups. By denying gay individuals their LEGAL right to be married, one is being a bigot. It is not a matter of opinion, but definition.

Absolutely true.

And to address the issue of civil ceremony versus wedding, I totally get what Maria is saying and agree completely. What I picture being the ideal solution is:

EVERYONE is MARRIED by the government, by filling out that paperwork wherever you choose to do so.
If you then choose to have a church ceremony, you are more than free to do so. We need a new definition of this church ceremony result though. You no longer get MARRIED in a church, you get MARRIED by the government. Perhaps you get TIED, you get BLESSED, you get SEALED in a church? Whatever it is, what happens to you in the church LEGALLY is not MARRIED. It is something else that you elect to do, and has no bearing on your legal couplehood status. Of course heterosexuals would probably still just call it getting married (despite the fact that more than 50% of marriages are now held outside of a religious center), because for them both parts would be carried out simultaneously.

Would this be an appropriate solution to you, Kenny?

This part is addressed to Kenny. I just wanted to add that the way things are now in the US, as I said before, for marriage or civil union, the law says the ceremony has to be solemnized, and it can be by either a judge (see? anyone can have a marriage with absolutely no religious involvement, and it's called "marriage", and it's always been this way) or a church or temple, etc. who wants to (emphasis added) perform one.

Then we get the "we have secular reasons" line. Not sound ones, you don't.

 

[Imdanny]

So, I say, let's grant equality for same-sex couples and let society catch up in 70 or 80 years.

Very well put.

Agree, that entire paragraph made perfect sense, Lotus99.

I've been very dismayed lately seeing all of the sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle racism rearing its ugly head in the wake of Trayvon Martin's murder. It's just incredible that in 2012 we have apparently tens of millions of people whose minds are stuck in the 19th century (a theme that rears its ugly head in seemingly every aspect of our lives these days, social and economic- it's very distressing).

Someone else in this thread (I'm sorry, please forgive me for not going back through it) made an excellent post too basically saying this same thing but taking it even farther (further?). Hatred will never be stamped out from the human race.

 

[Imdanny]

Pandora, I've already said the argument you're speaking against is a non-starter so I agree with you. Just as an aside, I'd like to tell you that when I was born in the late '60's, the US had about 150 million people. Today we have about 300 million. You can absolutely tell, too, in your everyday life, with the traffic, the construction, the crowds, and the decreased environmental quality outside of large cities, that there's twice as many people. How could you not double a country's population without being able to tell the difference? I believe that the world's population has gone through the roof in the same amount of time. I'm pretty sure that it's way more than doubled. The best thing I could do for (generic) you is not bring a child into this world. I should have to be encouraged to do just that? So I can add to a population already straining the quality of the environment, in a country that already doesn't have nearly enough jobs for everyone who needs one? That's just ridiculous.

 

[kenny]

An important development has just been announced . . . NAACP backs same-sex marriage
This is another step that makes me think gay marriage is coming sooner rather than later.
I think I am detecting a snowballing effect.

(CNN) - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on Saturday announced its backing of same-sex marriage, more than a week after President Barack Obama also expressed support for the issue.

"The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure political, social and economic equality of all people," Roslyn M. Brock, chairman of the NAACP's board of directors, said in a statement.

She added: "We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law."

Following Obama's announcement last week, speculation swirled over whether his decision would spark political backlash among some in the black evangelical community, which has traditionally been against same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, some prominent African-American religious leaders, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Joseph Lowery, praised Obama's support for same-sex marriage last week.

The NAACP in the recent past has stood in favor of gay rights issues, notably opposing Proposition 8 in California, the Defense of Marriage Act, and North Carolina's constitutional amendment that bans marriage and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

"Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP's support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people," said the group's president, Benjamin Todd Jealous.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/naacp-backs-same-sex-marriage/?hpt=hp_t3

 

[Imdanny]

I saw it here first! Thanks, Kenny. That is big news. Wow.

 

[AdiS]

I'm not in a position to vote here because I'm from Europe and not really familiar with the situation in the USA, at least not in details. SSM is still not recognized in my country though.

I know a gay couple who has been together for 30+ years. IMO they're more "married" than most married couples I know. I also have an acquaintance who got married & divorced twice in the span of two years, because (and I quote), weddings are fun. Fidelity is not or so his ex-wives say. I refuse to judge his, or anyone else's choices. It's not up to me. If the partners are both over 18 and want it (and are both human, I guess? ), then their choice is exactly this, not mine, not their neighbour's, theirs and they're entitled to it.

So why does my acquaintance get to do it twice in two years and the sweet middle aged gay couple is still not allowed to make their relationship official? How is this guy's choice more valid than theirs? Because he chooses to marry, cheat to and then dump ladies, rather than other men?

You see, I'm not an advocate for gay rights; I'm an advocate for human rights. I'm absolutely not saying that all hetero marriages are a joke (mine is not and I come from a long background of strong, loving marriages lasting a lifetime); I'm also not saying that all gay couples are as devoted as this one, or vice versa. What I'm saying is that everyone has an equal right to completely mess up a marriage, to live in married bliss, to go through a painful divorce, to celebrate a happy 20/30/50 wedding anniversary, etc. regardless of their choice in a spouse. That there are places in the world where this is still not a fact of life but a subject of heated discussions is frankly just sad for humanity as a whole.

 

[movie zombie]

I'm not in a position to vote here because I'm from Europe and not really familiar with the situation in the USA, at least not in details. SSM is still not recognized in my country though.

I know a gay couple who has been together for 30+ years. IMO they're more "married" than most married couples I know. I also have an acquaintance who got married & divorced twice in the span of two years, because (and I quote), weddings are fun. Fidelity is not or so his ex-wives say. I refuse to judge his, or anyone else's choices. It's not up to me. If the partners are both over 18 and want it (and are both human, I guess? ), then their choice is exactly this, not mine, not their neighbour's, theirs and they're entitled to it.

So why does my acquaintance get to do it twice in two years and the sweet middle aged gay couple is still not allowed to make their relationship official? How is this guy's choice more valid than theirs? Because he chooses to marry, cheat to and then dump ladies, rather than other men?

You see, I'm not an advocate for gay rights; I'm an advocate for human rights. I'm absolutely not saying that all hetero marriages are a joke (mine is not and I come from a long background of strong, loving marriages lasting a lifetime); I'm also not saying that all gay couples are as devoted as this one, or vice versa. What I'm saying is that everyone has an equal right to completely mess up a marriage, to live in married bliss, to go through a painful divorce, to celebrate a happy 20/30/50 wedding anniversary, etc. regardless of their choice in a spouse. That there are places in the world where this is still not a fact of life but a subject of heated discussions is frankly just sad for humanity as a whole.

agree 100%!!!!!!