Debate on gay marriage

[JohnRedDavis]

Hey all--

Many people on the left are certain they support gay rights for all the obvious reasons, but there's some confusion over whether or not same-sex marriage is a progressive step forward for homosexuals. We've been debating it out in the pages of Socialist Worker as well, so I'm copying the latest exchange below. Let me know what you think, eitherway!

--John
--------------

Letters to the editor

March 26, 2004 | Page 4

'Do we really want gay marriage?'

Dear Socialist Worker,

As an advocate for equal rights, I find myself in the political nowhere land with regard to gay marriage. "Separate is not equal," I hear--a powerful statement boldly stolen from the days of the American civil rights movement, e.g. Brown v. Board of Education. But marriage is hardly education.

For anyone who has made this issue their sole focus, I ask, "What are you fighting for?" Is marriage the institution within which we want to be included? Considering the history of this capitalist sham, let us think before we are determined to get our piece of this rotten pie.

We stand in a unique space to truly challenge the institution of marriage and, consequently, the system of allocations of benefits. Let us not be blinded by our lack of inclusion to the point where we become solely focused on being a part of this corrupt system.

We should not fight for marriage, but we should fight for the benefits that come with marriage, independently of the institution itself. What I want is not to spend $50,000 on a ceremony, celebrating a business agreement, which has a 50-50 chance of survival.

What I want, just as one example, is for my partners and friends to have insurance so that everyone can get proper medical attention regardless of their marital status. By rejecting the idea of marriage, let us reject the compulsive consumerism of imposed heterosexuality.

We want more than "hers and hers" matching towel sets. We want more than a prepackaged concept of what a legitimate relationship looks like. Let us step out of the procession and boldly state that we do not require the state of coupledom to be productive members of the community.

Let us not have the veil pulled over our eyes. Marriage is not a step in the right direction. It is participation in the institution that promotes the normality of compulsive heterosexuality. It is a gigantic leap backwards.

Ahoo Tabatabai,
Cincinnati, Ohio




'This struggle is energizing people'

Dear Socialist Worker,

The leading issue in the struggle for gay equality is clearly the issue of same-sex marriage. Whatever we think of marriage, this is the issue that is on the minds of millions of people.

Unfortunately, some on the left wish this wasn’t so. They rightly see marriage as a restrictive, reactionary institution. They want to talk about the role of capitalism in oppressing gays and lesbians.

Certainly these are not incorrect points to make. But refusing to organize in support of gay marriage because the issue is "too conservative" is plain childishness.

Thousands of people are becoming energized to fight back against bigotry by the controversy around same-sex marriage--clearly, this is a good fight. This is our fight!

The choice is simple. Either we explain our politics while we work side by side with other activists to win gay marriage, or we can sit on the sidelines complaining like sectarians about conservatism as we let the Democratic Party co-opt the movement and really pull it rightward.

John Green,
Davis, Calif.

www.socialistworker.org

[Take the Power back]

The problem with marriage is most of our "leaders" think of it as a religious thing, while in reality, it is seen by many as an economic choice. It is especially useful when dealing with hospitals, and their policies of "family only" in certain situations. To be honest, I have no problem with gays wanting to marry. If they feel it is right for them, economically or otherwise, it should be their decision. To paint a big picture: Bu$h gets a vast majority of the religious vote in America. What do the sects collectivley oppose? Gay marriage. To keep that crucial vote, he is against gay marriage. I believe that if this vote didn't exist, then gay marriage would be allowed. Even if it doesn't become true, and an amendment is passed banning it, I believe that it cannot last, because of the dwindling numbers of church-goers, and because every generation is different. We have to wait this one out.

[Nickademus]

yes i believe allowing gay marriages is a step forward because it gives gay couples choice. if they choose to live in a traditional heterosexual type mariage (other than its between 2 men or 2 women) then they should have the right to do it. if a couple doesn't want to be associated with that idea, well then they don't have to get married.

its progressive because it allows for choice .. choice is the key.

[yoshim]

I think we need to but out of their business. I don't see why it's such a big deal. What they do in their own homes is none of our business. Personally i know i could never be gay however if thats what they want to do then let them be.

[dopediana]

bye bye freedom

Gay Marriage Ban Passes 1st Step in Mass. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040330/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&cid=519&ncid=716)

By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - With one chapter closed in Massachusetts' gay marriage debate, several new ones now open, as gay couples look ahead to what may be a short-lived chance to tie the knot and lawmakers prepare for crucial November elections.


AP Photo

Reuters

Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues
AP National News Video Roundup
(AP Video)


Legislators approved a constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriages while legalizing civil unions. If passed during the next two-year Legislative session, the measure would go before voters in November 2006.


The move comes even as the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin in mid-May, as ordered by a November ruling of the state's Supreme Judicial Court.


Attention now turns to the fall elections, when lawmakers will have to defend their votes on the contentious social issue and fend off attempts to change the makeup of the Legislature.


All 200 legislative seats are up for grabs in November, and the amendment was approved Monday with only four votes to spare. It now becomes critical for opponents of gay marriage to ensure the re-election of their allies this fall.


Within moments of the historic vote, Gov. Mitt Romney told reporters he would ask the state's highest court to block gay marriages until the amendment process has run its lengthy course.


"Given the conflict, I believe the Supreme Judicial Court should delay the imposition of its decision until the people have a chance to be heard," said Romney, a Republican in his first term.


"If we begin providing for same-sex marriages on May 17," he said, "we will have created a good deal of confusion during the period in between — for the couples involved, for our state, for other states where couples may have moved and for the children of these families."


But Attorney General Tom Reilly, whose represents the state in court, said he would not seek to delay the May 17 deadline on Romney's behalf. Without court action, Monday's decision will not affect the deadline.


"It was very clear to me as attorney general that the majority of the Supreme Judicial Court have made up their minds," said Reilly, considered a possible Democratic candidate for governor in 2006. "Do I agree with their decision? No. Absolutely not. But that is the law of the state."


Gay-rights advocates felt little joy in seeing a proposed amendment include civil-union rights. They'd already witnessed the state's highest court award full marriage rights only to see lawmakers try to water it down.


"I believe many of them are going to feel very ashamed of what they've just done today," said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.


But conservatives also weren't quick to embrace the compromise amendment, calling it blackmail to force citizens to approve civil unions as part of a marriage ban.


"We are giving the people a false choice," said Rep. Vinny deMacedo, a Republican. "We're saying, 'No problem, you can vote to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but the only way you can do it is if you create civil unions that are entirely the same as marriage.'"


The constitutional convention took place in front of thousands of citizens, who crowded the Statehouse each day to watch from the gallery and protest in the hallways.


After each intonation of "Jesus" by gay rights opponents inside the building Monday, gay rights advocates tacked on "loves us." The two opposing sides then shouted "Jesus Christ!" and "equal rights!" simultaneously, blending into a single, indistinguishable chant.


The debate in Massachusetts has unfolded in the national spotlight, continuing to move forward as mayors across the country permitted unsanctioned gay weddings in their cities.




"This entire debate ... has occurred in the eye of a social and cultural and even spiritual storm," said House Speaker Thomas Finneran. "Massachusetts is hesitant about what the appropriate course of action might be. The nation seems to be similarly divided."

[Sabocat]

I'm ashamed of my state of Massachusetts today. Politicians here caving in to the Irish Catholic religious right that permeate the political scene here have finally managed to put discrimination in the state constitution.

Rather than realize (as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did) that barring same sex marriage is unconstitutional, leaders at the State House have taken it upon themselves to determine "moral foundations for the state".

The amendment that passed last night, that will be put to a referendum vote in 2006, basically takes away any chance for the population of the state to vote on whether discrimination should be written into the State Constitution. The wording bars same sex marriage and then asks if civil unions should be allowed. In reality, same sex couples could not only be locked out of marriage in this state, but also civil unions.

Disgusting.

[SittingBull47]

I don't see how gay marriage can be a sidestep from equality. I saw somebody above mention how people think marriage is strictly a religious institution, and i agree that it isn't. If homosexuals could have the option and rightful human choice to marry, then this would be a big step for creating a more equal and civil world. I support gay rights. :hammer:

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 02:36 PM
I don't see how gay marriage can be a sidestep from equality. I saw somebody above mention how people think marriage is strictly a religious institution, and i agree that it isn't. If homosexuals could have the option and rightful human choice to marry, then this would be a big step for creating a more equal and civil world. I support gay rights. :hammer:
I agree
Also it isn't a matter of why should there be gay marriges but why shouldn't there be.

[Saint-Just]

In what way can marriage be oppressive or reactionary? Love and commitment are not political ideas. People marry because they want to marry each other. Marriage is only oppressive if there is a necessity to marry for money. That has been the case in the past for women, however even then they fall in love with the person they marry unless that person is abusive.

Marriage was oppressive for women in the past and can still be in some instances. But it is certainly not for homosexuals since there is no difference in sex so the couple have the same work opportunities.

This thread seems entirely pointless unless one explains how marriage is oppressive.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Hmm,

Marriage can be looked at as oppressive because it is an institution, with restrictions of course. you know, fulfilling promises made, etc. When one breaks these rules, they're sorta outcasted, and will probably further deter the institution of marriage...

Things such as cheating, will definitely go against traditional ideology of what marriage/relationships are. Thus, it ties in with oppression because your desires are being suppressed so that you can fulfill the institution. Ie. if you cheat on your spouse, and nobody knows about it, will you tell them? Questionning it alone shows that oppression is exemplified. You're action of cheating will be deemed deviant behaviour, and sort've like a taboo. You just dont do it, if you're to be married.

I personally dont believe in getting married, etc. It's pointless...its like a relationship. No point, just attaching ourselves with external forces. We're so afraid of being alone, that we orient to what society expects of us. Look at products such as housing and cars...they're all aimed at married individuals...or ppl engaged in relationships. Everyone's scared of being and dying alone, hence relationships come into play.

Oh, btw, i'm a total supporter for homosexual rights. It's not 'gay' rights...this isnt some patriarchy, it should be egalitarian. Emphasis on 'should'. Lol.

I&#39;m heterosexual myself, but I believe in the equality of everyone regardless of sexual orientation...somehow the gov&#39;t wants a say in what you do in your bedroom...as if it were any of their business. Lol. <_<

[El Che]

What is reactionary is using marriage as discriminatory, oppressive tool against homosexuals.

[God of Imperia]

If you are gay, you should have the same rights as everyone else, it&#39;s the same a heterosexually, two people who love each other, so why act difficult about it?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

[JohnRedDavis]

Why is the institution of marriage oppressive and reactionary? I suggest people read (or re-read) Engel&#39;s "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=Haymarket&Product_Code=MSOFP) as a classic on how economic relations have determined how families look and act today (e.g. man and woman in monogamous relationship, family [especially woman] in charge of rearing children at own expense, etc. etc.)

Studies of non-Western cultures have shown that our institution of marriages and families is not really the "natural" way things would be if our lives were free from influence. Even a look at the history books shows the evolving nature of the family and sexuality in the West--surprise, surprise coninciding often with economic needs (e.g. the number of producers required resulted in increase religious/state meddling in the output of children and the villification of people--like gays--who don&#39;t produce children.)

There&#39;s also the role of inheritance. In class divided societies, certain people achieve enormous sums of wealth and privilege over the rest of society. These people needed a reliable way to transmit this to their offspring, hence the need for a definite paternity of one&#39;s children (i.e. the woman doesn&#39;t get to have sex with whomever she might enjoy it with, because no one wants to leave inheritance to someone else&#39;s offspring.)

There are other reasons as well, which I&#39;m sure folks can point out. I&#39;m not doing Engels justice, but I hope this clarifies a tad bit why people are opposed to the institution of marriage.

That said, I still see this as a struggle for equal rights. The civil rights movement fought for equal protection under the law, equal oppurtunities, etc. at its earliest stage--would we denounce them for seeking equality from an inherently unjust system? Or do we work with people committed to social justice with a goal in mind of explaining capitalism to our fellow activists and broadening their perspectives on fighting injustice?

I think that&#39;s essentially the point.

[JohnRedDavis]

There is one other consideration I failed to mention: In order to achieve a socialist society--I believe its dependent on mass action and revolution--the working-class has to overcome the multitude of divisions that currently divide it. If we&#39;re going to unite against our oppressors, we have to smash racism, sexism, nationalism and yes, homophobia.

Right now the ball is in our court: Do we let the bigots triumph with the ban on gay marriage, codifying discrimination against gays and sending the message "these people are different from the rest of us" or do we fight back as hard as hell to win this fight?

I don&#39;t know about everybody else, but in California homophobia is one of the last untouched oppressions. You couldn&#39;t get away in my school with overt racism or sexism (with exceptions...) but you can call somebody else a &#39;fag&#39; or a &#39;homo&#39; with near impunity.

So this is also very much a question of tactics--can we overcome homophobia to unite ordinary folks against their true problem? Or do we denounce any struggle that doesn&#39;t directly call for socialism or a complete transformation of American society?

[God of Imperia]

In Belgium, gay people can get married, I think since last year, but it&#39;s quite new.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

same with Toronto...for a few yrs now...we even have a &#39;gay pride parade&#39; in June.

[Rising]

i believe that allowing gay people to get married is a huge step forward, many believe it&#39;s a step to hell and chaos. I remember i got into a huge argument, argument, not debate, with my parents because they are so close minded. I remember that whenever i&#39;d shut them up, they&#39;d always bring up that it was adam and eve, not adam and adam. First of all, i&#39;d tell them that the bible is not to be taken literally,(how could sum1 be created from a rib?&#33;?) and that not everybody believes in that (ahem).
The thing that they mentioned, which i would like to ask you guys for an opinion on, is that if gay marriages are allowed, they are going to be exposing themselves to the public. That they are going to be at the parks where your kids are playing and they are going to be making out and influencing the little ones. They said that by just seeing that, the next generation was going to see homosexuality as okay (i told them that it was okay...) and pretty soon we were going to have a generation of bisexuals. I told them that everybody is bisexual and they got offended, so i dropped that argument and they continued with their argument. What shocks me is that they want gay people to be hidden, unexposed, left at home. That they wanted for them to not be let out in public. Another thing they brought up was that time and time again,it has happened that gay people molest children and severely traumatize them, making the children gay themselves. I told them that "straight" people also molested children and caused severe damage to them.
It was a really heated argument, i just would like some opinions on the comments my parents said. Their way of thinking was really disturbing to me, as mine was to them...

[Nickademus]

people often want LGBT people (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) people to be hidden because they don&#39;t understand it and they are scared. its the same with the bdsm (bondage dominance sado-masochism)community, people don&#39;t undersatnd it and are afraid of the &#39;freaks&#39; that engage in it. you won&#39;t create generations of bisexual simply because they are exposed to LGBT couples. i&#39;ve always been exposed to those types of relationships and i&#39;m not bi ......i&#39;m just sexual. and when people get back to the idea of humans as sexual beings certain &#39;acts&#39; with certain people will not be condemned. just because a kid sees two homosexual men kissing doesn&#39;t mean that the kid is gonna wanna have sex with another man. its just going to create an atmosphere of love and respect for all human beings regardless of their sexual preferences.

[BuyOurEverything]

JRD: While I agree that marraige is an opressive institution, the problem the position you presented is that it implies that homosexuals have a "responsability" to be victimized for the greater good. I agree that eventually marraige should be abolished, I don&#39;t think that it should fall on homosexuals to accomplish this.

[Inti]

Marriage is a symbolic thing and sometimes the only way for two people to live together as when I married my wife who is from south america.. Without marrying her it would be close to 0 chance for us to live together here in Norway. Anyway.. I think that of course gays should be able to marry with each other if they feel for it, because one person isnt less worth than the other just because it finds their own sex more attractive and want to close the circle by marrying his or her man/woman.. For my wife and I it was more out of necessity but also a sign of showing our deep love that we married.. Btw here in Norway its legal to marry gay couple even though I dont know if the church here does it...

[apathy maybe]

Marriage is an outdated institution. It was a way of raising children, then an economic thing. Now it is outdated. What the French have done with &#39;unions&#39; (I can&#39;t remember what they are called) is good I feel. Something that can be formed by both (or all if more then 2*) parties. And if one party wants to break it, well easy broke.


*Wouldn&#39;t it be cool if marriage could be between more then two people (and I don&#39;t mean just one man many woman either).

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 31 2004, 09:42 PM
Marriage is an outdated institution. It was a way of raising children, then an economic thing. Now it is outdated. What the French have done with &#39;unions&#39; (I can&#39;t remember what they are called) is good I feel. Something that can be formed by both (or all if more then 2*) parties. And if one party wants to break it, well easy broke.


*Wouldn&#39;t it be cool if marriage could be between more then two people (and I don&#39;t mean just one man many woman either).
many people now a days only see marriage as an economic advantage that&#39;s true. HOWEVER, for those who still believe that it is a valuable institution, they should have the right to get married. Thus, if two gay men believe in the value of getting married and they want to, they should. letting them do so is not a step backwards or sideways...it is a step forward, even if marriage is abolised some day.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Knowledge 6 6 [email protected] 30 2004, 09:23 PM
same with Toronto...for a few yrs now...we even have a &#39;gay pride parade&#39; in June.
I was lucky enough to be there at the one in 2002.

[Invader Zim]

The fact that there needs to be a debate on the subject is disgusting. It really buggs me how people can be so reactionary to actually limit the freedoms of other people, just because they dont agree with their sexuality.

Its one of those things which really pisses me off.

[BuyOurEverything]

I haven&#39;t really seen anyone address the argument that was actually put forward in the article. Essentially, it said that the fight for gay marraige is not a fight for freedom because marraige is intrinsically an oppressive institution. Sort of like if instead of abolishing slavery, we just made it legal for black people to own slaves too. The only problem I have with this argument is that it puts the burden unfairly on homsexuals to change the system, but marraige is something that should be abolished. I&#39;d like to see someone&#39;s response to this.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 03:01 PM
I haven&#39;t really seen anyone address the argument that was actually put forward in the article. Essentially, it said that the fight for gay marraige is not a fight for freedom because marraige is intrinsically an oppressive institution. Sort of like if instead of abolishing slavery, we just made it legal for black people to own slaves too. The only problem I have with this argument is that it puts the burden unfairly on homsexuals to change the system, but marraige is something that should be abolished. I&#39;d like to see someone&#39;s response to this.
actually i have addressed this issue:

I agree marriage is out of date but its about choice&#33; If people continue to believe in marriage, and many do, and don&#39;t see it as an oppressive regime they should have the CHOICE to follow that regime. Its akin to saying black people shouldn&#39;t be allowed to follow the Christian faith because Christianity is oppressive. If people want to engage in some activity, so long as it harms no one, they should be allowed to engage in that, regardless of whether or not the rest of society finds it oppressive.

and i don&#39;t think it places any burden on homosexual couples to abolish the system....its on everyone .. why do you think so many heterosexual couples are choosing not to get marriage .... its everyones burden if they so desire to make that change .....

[jimi2times]

Is it possible to say that i don&#39;t believe that there should be gay marriages without sounding homophobic? I don&#39;t think that being gay is a healthy, natural thing, but that doesn&#39;t mean i don&#39;t see that human being as any less of a human because of his/her sexual preference. In my opinion, being gay is like having a phobia to something. You wouldn&#39;t have any aggressive feeling or wish someone ill-will if they were afraid of heights, or spiders etc.. but at the same time you wouldn&#39;t say that it was normal.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 11:01 PM
I haven&#39;t really seen anyone address the argument that was actually put forward in the article. Essentially, it said that the fight for gay marraige is not a fight for freedom because marraige is intrinsically an oppressive institution. Sort of like if instead of abolishing slavery, we just made it legal for black people to own slaves too. The only problem I have with this argument is that it puts the burden unfairly on homsexuals to change the system, but marraige is something that should be abolished. I&#39;d like to see someone&#39;s response to this.
I addressed the argument. I said that marriage was not oppressive and so if you believe in gay rights you should fight for gay marriages.

Anyway, if you believe that marriage is oppressive you should be in favour of gay marriage now since marriage may disappear altogether in the future. Gay marriages would be one step in progressing towards marriage disappearing entirely.

I think marriage is extremely important in society and that nowadays too many people are not encouraged to marry. I think that in the past marriage was oppressive as it was oppressive towards women.

Marriage is not oppressive. It provides individuals with emotional sustenance. Marriage restricts people in the sense that they can less easily betray another&#39;s trust. Two people willing to marry will likely stay together for the rest of their lives regardless whether they marry or not. My parents are not married.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by Nickademus+Apr 2 2004, 12:38 AM--> (Nickademus @ Apr 2 2004, 12:38 AM)
[email protected] 1 2004, 03:01 PM
I haven&#39;t really seen anyone address the argument that was actually put forward in the article. Essentially, it said that the fight for gay marraige is not a fight for freedom because marraige is intrinsically an oppressive institution. Sort of like if instead of abolishing slavery, we just made it legal for black people to own slaves too. The only problem I have with this argument is that it puts the burden unfairly on homsexuals to change the system, but marraige is something that should be abolished. I&#39;d like to see someone&#39;s response to this.
actually i have addressed this issue:

I agree marriage is out of date but its about choice&#33; If people continue to believe in marriage, and many do, and don&#39;t see it as an oppressive regime they should have the CHOICE to follow that regime. Its akin to saying black people shouldn&#39;t be allowed to follow the Christian faith because Christianity is oppressive. If people want to engage in some activity, so long as it harms no one, they should be allowed to engage in that, regardless of whether or not the rest of society finds it oppressive.

and i don&#39;t think it places any burden on homosexual couples to abolish the system....its on everyone .. why do you think so many heterosexual couples are choosing not to get marriage .... its everyones burden if they so desire to make that change ..... [/b]
I agree with that also even if it is opressive surely homosexuals should still be allowed to do it as it proves there is no diffrence.

[The Rotten One]

Poltically, gays, like most people on this board, have done all they can to seperate themselves from and fight against the Christian Right. It confuses some why they would want to fight to be part of on of the right&#39;s activities. But this is a sign of great progress. Perhaps they don&#39;t just want a part, they want a say. perhaps that because of these politically astute homosexuals, the oppressive rules of marrage will be repealed. Perhaps this step to the right will lead the nation to the left.

[apathy maybe]

You can be gay and on the right. And not all those on the right are homophobic.

[sin miedo]

Right now I don&#39;t think it&#39;s an issue people should be focused on. I don&#39;t know why the hell the media is jumpin on it so hard.

[WUOrevolt]

Gay people are just that,people. They should have the same rights as everyone else. The government has no place to tell gays that they cant marry.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:50 AM
Gay people are just that,people. They should have the same rights as everyone else. The government has no place to tell gays that they cant marry.
i am in compleat agreement with that.

[Invader Zim]

Its also odd that considering that their is povery around the world, terrorist threats, famine, AIDS, war and exploitation, that anyone cares what two people do in private because they love each other.

Is it just me, or have bigots in the US got their priorities all wrong?

[Maomorethanever726]

While I agree with people like Engels and Goldman on marrige being mainly an economic institution and a form of permenent prostitution, I also realize that everyone does not see it this way. Homosexual couples are missing out on over 1000 rights that Heterosexual couples are entitled to. If a homosexual couple wishes to get married they should be able to do so. Homosexuals are human too and are not really any different from anybody else.
A while ago I heard a lady on the radio suggesting the solution to the problem would be to do away with financial or other benifits to marrige and then (she says) most of the debate about marrige would go away. I&#39;m not sure what exaclty to think about what she said but she at least presented an interesting veiw.

Peace, Love, Unity, and Revolution&#33;

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 01:09 PM
While I agree with people like Engels and Goldman on marrige being mainly an economic institution and a form of permenent prostitution, I also realize that everyone does not see it this way. Homosexual couples are missing out on over 1000 rights that Heterosexual couples are entitled to. If a homosexual couple wishes to get married they should be able to do so. Homosexuals are human too and are not really any different from anybody else.
A while ago I heard a lady on the radio suggesting the solution to the problem would be to do away with financial or other benifits to marrige and then (she says) most of the debate about marrige would go away. I&#39;m not sure what exaclty to think about what she said but she at least presented an interesting veiw.

Peace, Love, Unity, and Revolution&#33;
The strange thing is why pepole need marrige to get some of those rites.

[God of Imperia]

Come on, how oppressive can marriage be? It is only oppressive if it is obligated to everyone. Marriage however is still a choice (in most cases anyway), marriage is no a commitment to the state but to the person you marry. What are the economic reasons? But can&#39;t you also say this of getting children? Some people also get children for more money (child support), what do you want to do about that? ...

[DaCuBaN]

*Wouldn&#39;t it be cool if marriage could be between more then two people (and I don&#39;t mean just one man many woman either).

what... as in a group of people pooling their resources in an unforgiving society to create their own personal utopia? Sounds excellent to me

I&#39;ve never understood the big problem with same-sex marriage. Hell I don&#39;t see the point in marriage, but if anyone decides that it&#39;s for them, why should I care one way or the other? excluding religion from the argument marriage is simply a legal contract between two parties. To be honest I think the question shouldn&#39;t be should we have gay marriage, but why do we still HAVE marriage. Any two people could write a legal and binding contract between them - so what is the point if you are not religious?

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 03:33 PM

*Wouldn&#39;t it be cool if marriage could be between more then two people (and I don&#39;t mean just one man many woman either).


wouldn&#39;t that be a bit like a commune.

[robob8706]

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s anybody&#39;s business to make someone&#39;s personal life illegal. Gays are gays and they&#39;ll continue to be gay. Just accept it. If you dont like it, tough, if you don&#39;t like gays i don&#39;t like you but im not trying to illegally ban you from any of your rights.

[crazy comie]

yes i think that about somes evryones thoughts up good post.

[cubist]

personally gay marriage is fine, who gives a fuck gay people are fine too may aswell grant them equality in law of marriage, i hate marriage laws anyway so if they want to tie themselves intolegally binding money issues let them,

and people that are against it,

well you should have tried harder to stop homosexuaality rather than *****ing about the consequences of homosexuality being in existance, fucking christians

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:07 PM
fucking christians
It isn&#39;t just them it is alot of others to.

[palestine_forever]

I would support a form of union which gives near enough the same rights as marriage. But not gay marriage, call it whatever else you like and I wouldnt mind.

[robob8706]

If you would gladly give them a synthetic marriage, as long as its not called a "marriage" why not give them a real one?

[BuyOurEverything]

I would support a form of union which gives near enough the same rights as marriage. But not gay marriage, call it whatever else you like and I wouldnt mind.

Seperate but equal hey? You don&#39;t mind if they get the economic benefits, you just want to maintain an air of superiority.

[crazy comie]

Why does the name even matter.

[BuyOurEverything]

Because if the name is different, it suggests the the relatinship is less vaild or normal than traditional marraige.

[DaCuBaN]

A simpler solution would be to dismiss the union of marriage in favour of a more general union - marriage but without the &#39;in the eyes of god&#39; bit

I must say I don&#39;t know what all the fuss is about.... If two beings wish to unite in that manner, then why not? One of the main arguments I&#39;ve heard against homosexual union is that it&#39;s somehow &#39;unnatural&#39;. If that argument followed marriage would become a simple matter of choosing the most fertile partner - something that is totally irrelevant in my eyes.


fucking christians

Yes, once again religion becomes the skapegoat. Shock horror :rolleyes:
I&#39;m no advocate of religion, but religious intolerance is just as bad as being a &#39;gay basher&#39; or a racist <_<

[crazy comie]

It isn&#39;t quit as bad as you chose the realigeaon that you have

[BuyOurEverything]

Yes, once again religion becomes the skapegoat. Shock horror
I&#39;m no advocate of religion, but religious intolerance is just as bad as being a &#39;gay basher&#39; or a racist

Maybe religion is blamed in this case because it deserves it. The vast majority of homophobes are anti-homosexual for religious reasons. If you don&#39;t see that, you&#39;re blind.

[Nickademus]

i don&#39;t know that i agree Buyoureverything. i know some homophobes, including some in my family, who aren&#39;t religious at all, they simply use religion as an EXCUSE for their homophobia.

[BuyOurEverything]

Yes, I&#39;ve met people like that too, but I think they are in the relative minority. Also, it should be noted that this excuse is accepted because of people&#39;s &#39;tolerance&#39; of religion. Religion makes homophobia not only acceptable but celebrated, even if not all homophobes are perticularily religious themselves.

[crazy comie]

Realigeom is the opium of the mass becuse it can be used to justifie things and to fool pepole.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 5 2004, 06:51 AM
Realigeom is the opium of the mass becuse it can be used to justifie things and to fool pepole.
not all religions.

[BuyOurEverything]

All religions are false. Their &#39;utility&#39; of being the &#39;opiate of the masses&#39; varies between them, but they&#39;re never a good thing.

[Zapatista207]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 5 2004, 09:51 AM
Religion is the opium of the mass becuse it can be used to justifiy things and to fool pepole.
*ahem* http://www.united-church.ca/jpc/humanrights/030516.shtm Not all churches are against gay marriage. The United Church is fighting for the right of Gay Marriage in the Supreme Court hearings which I believe are comning up this fall. There is another good link to the UCC and their take on SSM, but I cant find it ATM.

[SittingBull47]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 03:24 PM
I would support a form of union which gives near enough the same rights as marriage. But not gay marriage, call it whatever else you like and I wouldnt mind.
Their just words, but still. If we were to call it something else, then it&#39;d be like the deep south in times of slavery. Marriage didn&#39;t exist for "colored people". The union of 2 people that love each other should be called marriage. anything less is just stupid.

[Funky Monk]

Blaming religion for prejudice is harsh.

Religion is just an excuse which some people use to justify their views. I mean, take Christianity, gay vicars exist, i think there might even be a gay bishop.

[James]

On christianity and homosexuals:
quite simply the bible says homosexuality is a sin.
If you don&#39;t like it, follow a different religion to follow. There are a fair few to choose from

[Funky Monk]

You can interprate the bible to say that homosexuality is a sin.

If it was done and dusted how could gay priests exist?

[James]

Well they are sinners&#33;
Just like you can have priests who commit other sins.

(i suppose it comes down to, as you point out, how you interrept it. Personally, i think it is against homosexuality)

[robob8706]

Religious opinion should be kept to yourself, if you try and force religous doctrine upon the public things like this happen where we deny the basic rights of citizens who are just the same as us. It&#39;s like the south when they wouldnt let blacks marry. In that time they were seen as a different type of people, much like gays are seen as a different type of people now. Then after a while, we didnt care about blacks marrying, we accpeted them into our culture. Maybe in a while gays wont be denied their basic rights anymore. If the concept of Gay Marriage is so wrong because the christian bible says it is Holy and should not be tampered with, why are all the christians protesting Hindu marriages, Muslim marriages, or even Jewish marriages for that matter. All of those go against the bible much like gays do but you freely accept them for what they are and what they believe in, why not do the same for homosexuals? Since you cleary accept other religions and dont do anything about it, then obviously its not that big of a deal. Religion should be kept to yourself because it just ends up causing more problems.

[robob8706]

Corrections : Why are all the christians NOT protesting hindu etc....

[cubist]

if you wish to go into theology,

it declares homosexuality is a sin, but it says you should leave judgement to god and god alone, an dthat you should serve the sinners, and try to open there eyes to the sin and heal them,

[James]

aye, what he said
:D

[cubist]

i would like to point out that in america and teh uK marriage is based purely on the christian values, the sanctity and the rules are all entwined into british protestant history(henry VIII) and the european catholic rule, so really Gay marriage should never be allowed, however unlike then, muslims and buddhists and hindus all live in our multi-cultural society, so really the rules need to be re-iterated,

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 04:45 PM
i would like to point out that in america and teh uK marriage is based purely on the christian values, the sanctity and the rules are all entwined into british protestant history(henry VIII) and the european catholic rule, so really Gay marriage should never be allowed, however unlike then, muslims and buddhists and hindus all live in our multi-cultural society, so really the rules need to be re-iterated,
That is definetly true.

[robob8706]

Basically, religion should not be applied to social affairs since there are so many different types of religious beliefs that conflict with each other.

[BuyOurEverything]

What the hell&#39;s the point of religion if it doesn&#39;t apply to social affairs?

[robob8706]

Religion is for the individual, when applied to the masses, there is conflict. Keep it to yourself and try not to piss people of by your religious dogma.

[crazy comie]

yeah that works but some pepole get annoyed if they can&#39;t "evangilise"

[DaCuBaN]

Maybe religion is blamed in this case because it deserves it. The vast majority of homophobes are anti-homosexual for religious reasons. If you don&#39;t see that, you&#39;re blind

I&#39;m probably going to get told it&#39;s the exception to prove the rule, but hey.

My family is Roman Catholic. Every sunday they go to church (as did I till I was 14 - up until then I was coerced into going) and go through the motions. These are the people who you are directly accusing of being the homophobes of this world - and that is simply not true

In my (limited) experience the homophobes out there are simply reactionaries - and quite often come from the &#39;class&#39; that many are trying to emancipate - at least in my locality.

I repeat: religious intolerance is just as bad as homophobia - it&#39;s segregation, &#39;classing&#39; of people.

*EDIT*


On christianity and homosexuals:
quite simply the bible says homosexuality is a sin.
If you don&#39;t like it, follow a different religion to follow. There are a fair few to choose from


This is something I&#39;ve brought up with my folks a fair few times. They aren&#39;t against gay marriage, they aren&#39;t against contraception... in fact the only thing they hold in common is that they believe that jesus died for their sins etc.


What the hell&#39;s the point of religion if it doesn&#39;t apply to social affairs?

Basically it&#39;s not about the ceremony to them, it&#39;s simply about the community feeling - for not being all alone.

At least that was the impressions I gleaned from them.