Same Gender Marriages

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I haven't really seen a thread addressing this topic, but it is a world wide issue.

The recent events in Canada and New Zealand got me thinking about the issue. . .opinions? Links?

[RagsToRevolution]

Yes. There is no reason why not, unless someone can help provide some sort of non-moral argument.

I have many people close to me who are homosexual, though I am heterosexual. In fact, my mother is a lesbian, but that story is not for these forums. All I have heard is reactionary, religious, right wing shit being spouted off by this ignorant bigots just because they think it "disgusting" and "immoral," when love of any sort, heterosexual or homosexual, is a beautiful thing.

[commiecrusader]

Why shouldn't they marry? Most heterosexuals who marry arent strongly religious, and why the fuck should it matter if it doesnt fit with some sort of bigoted moral perspective of the ruling class.

[noodles]

They are human being like all others.. Its only conservative christian fundamentalists who dont like homosexual marriages..

religious right wing crap.

[hobosexual]

no, and it has nothing to do with being gay or not, i love gay people and im not homosexual. i think any marriage is stupid. it just proves how fucked up things are. to get married is to give in to the government and religion at the same time. what the fuck is the point of seperation of church and state when "in god we trust" is on all our currency. what if i dont believe in god, or what if im a buddist. it's racism and it just proves that the constitution is nothing more that kinder for a fire.
im not saying there is no point at all to marriage cause i understand it is for taxes and for titles and such and such as well but fuck that.
i live in america, and in america marriage means something to about 1 in 10 couples anyways. i know a guy who embodies my thoughts on the common american. hes religious, fucking has god written over everything, tells people that he has nothing against homosexuals but it's a sin and sinners go to hell. but of course, rules are only rules until they go against ur interests. he talks about beating the shit out of people and having sex with girls all the times and i tell him "isn't that a sin?" he tells me "nah, it's just a minor offense."
ok, so i kinda strayed off the topic a little bit, but my point is if the church and state doesn't like homosexuals then fuck them. i am america, america is not government, america is people. people in america are homosexuals.
ignorance is god.

[jwijn]

Marriage is not a show of religion. That is why marriage is not restricted to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or any other religion for that matter. Marriage is a show of utmost love. My aunt is a lesbian, and she dearly loves her partner. Why should she be excluded from expressing her love? Who decided that lesbians are unable to be completely human because, after all, love is what makes us human.

[RagsToRevolution]

I know that in a ideal world, there would be no marriage.

But, I was addressing the specific Amerikan issue of Gay Marriage, not idealism.

[RedAnarchist]

Why shouldnt homosexuals be allowed to marry and adopt kids and have all the rights a married couple have? When the bible and other religious scriptures were written, people needed to have heterosexual relationships to make more kids as up until the late 19th century there was quite an high infant mortality rate worldwide - there still is in Africa and places like that. Now there is not sucha great need, so homosexual relationships do not need to be oppressed and thought of as socially unacceptable - and all other acts and beliefs made unacceptable by religion should now be made acceptable to society, beacuse many people are now turning away from the churches and their bourgoisie lies.

[Purple]

I saw a documentary on FOX News yesterday, and saw how they related Kerry with nothing else but gay marriages, ignoring the country's terrible economy, healt care issues, etc.

[RedAnarchist]

FOX News is a load of reactionary shit isnt it?

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

The most laughable thing about right-wing reactionaries is that they make out marriage to be this monolithic, set-in-stone thing that has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman, when in fact marriage and sexual relations amongst humans have changed drastically and have come in many different forms over the centuries!

Hopefully someday we will live in a world where GLBT people will be able to marry freely based on love, equality, and friendship, and that this kind of marriage will be as legally valid as heterosexual marriages.

[NovelGentry]

Marriage as a term is indeed religious related. It is a word that is telling of a sacrament. While I'm not saying gay people can't have the right to such things, it is a bit strange since it is religious based. Then again it's arguable that christianity supports homosexuality. They have made up a new term though here in the US called "civil unions." I much prefer this term as an escape from marriage, the problem is that gay people are ONLY provided civil unions and under the law that doesn't give them equal rights. What needs to happen is that we separate the two. The state should recognize civil unions and base all rights of such a union on that, while the church can recognize marriage. I personally see marriage going out the window in a communist society -- it simply wouldn't make sense. Civil unions... maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure it really matters that much, but as it stands now these are nothing more than state recognized reasons for various benefits, marriage much more than civil unions. I don't see why either of these would make a lot of sense in communist society since the benefits are universal and there will be no "tax breaks" as taxes won't even exist, etc..etc..

[Commie Girl]

The Canadian govt will be introducing a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and it should pass easily. No matter what Ralph Klein says, noone knows how many people are pro/anti gay marriage. I am an Albertan and he doesnt speak for me!

Story from CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/12/marriage-referendum041212.html)

[Sabocat]

There have been over 4000 marriages in my state of Massachusetts since the law allowing it was passed last May.

What seperates (in this society in the U.S.) civil unions from marriages, is about 1100 federal and state laws, guidelines etc. governing things such as death benefits, hospital visitation rights, pensions, taxes, adoption, wills and so on.

Civil Unions as they are currently written is not the same as marriage.

The Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts has deemed that seperate is not equal and hence has removed the restrictions.

In my opinion you are either for civil rights for ALL, or you're not. Regardless of how worthless someone thinks the institution of marriage is, in this society right now, denying one group the same rights as others is nothing more than segregation.

[Commie Girl]

:) Many Canadians see this as a Human rights issue, simple.

[NovelGentry]

What seperates (in this society in the U.S.) civil unions from marriages, is about 1100 federal and state laws, guidelines etc. governing things such as death benefits, hospital visitation rights, pensions, taxes, adoption, wills and so on.

I'm well aware, my point is that marriage as a term is indicative of the religious sacrament. What's in a name? What I am saying is that all these benefits and rights should be pushed into the legal definition of "civil union" and that states recognized civil unions ONLY. That is a traditionally "married" couple would be considered a civl union, and the term "marriage" is left up to the church, and let them design it how they want. This should make all people happy as the biggots arguments are always "marriage is between a man and a women"... so change what the state recognizes. There's no need to redefine marriage, if the state only recognizes civil unions and civil unions can be between the same sex, then you are fine. Marriage would just be a superfluous title placed upon those who see it as part of their religion. It would offer no separate rights, except maybe rights in the church (whatever the hell those would be).

[Paradox]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I just want to know, what causes someone to become homosexual? Have there been any studies on this? I myself am not Christian, but I am still confused about this issue. A gay or lesbian couple cannot reproduce, so from a biological standpoint, it's seems unusual to me. There was a guy who used to work where I work who was gay. I didn't have any problems with him, which I'm guessing is because he didn't act like a girl (no offense). I don't mean to insult anyone, but I'm just a little puzzled about this issue. I suppose that what goes on between two people is their business and no one else's, but I would still like to know where this originated. Weren't there homosexuals in the bible? I remember hearing something about that, including sodomy, in a show on the History channel, so what gives? Were there homosexuals prior to the rise of Christianity? If so, how were they treated?

[RagsToRevolution]

Homosexuality has been investigated as a genetic trait, however, it has not been proven. However, it is generally accepted that homosexuality among humans and animals is mostly decided at birth. However, there is homosexuality created because of enviromental conditions, such as animals in captivity, and yes, sometimes prison rape. But this are extraordinary cases.

If you ask most homosexual individuals, they will tell you your jsut gay, you don't become gay. At least all the ones I know were pretty much born gay (my mother, quite a few family friends.)

[Zingu]

Depends on what you mean as "marriage".


There is civil marriage, the state's authority to make you legally husband and uh....husband if thats the case.

Then theres religous, the ceremonial stuff.

In a Communist or Anarchist society, we wouldn't have either of them, would we?

So lets cut the head right off the snake, abolish marriage!

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 02:14 AM
Were there homosexuals prior to the rise of Christianity? If so, how were they treated?
Yes, there were gays well before even the old testement.

Treatment varies, depending on time and location.

In ancient Greece, for instance, sexuality was live-let live. Homosexual, beastiality, whatever floats your boat.

Alexander the Great of Macedon was (probably) gay. He had no children, and had a (very) close young male companion. People treated Alexander just fine. . .he scared the hell out of most people.

[NovelGentry]

Homosexuality has been investigated as a genetic trait, however, it has not been proven. However, it is generally accepted that homosexuality among humans and animals is mostly decided at birth.

To go into this further. To my knowledge scientist have failed in all cases to link it directly to genes. What most scientists admit is more likely is that it is indirectly caused by genetics. Many contribute it to inbalances in hormones etc... there's not been enough study I don't tihnk to determine which hormones are overproduced or underproduced to cause this. Either way, what it boils down to is that genetics will determine hormonal production (take for example people born with diabetes who do not produce enough insulin).


In a Communist or Anarchist society, we wouldn't have either of them, would we?

Both would be superfluous as it would offer no benefits or rights above other men. Although I would not be shocked if people maintined "committment ceremonies" so to speak, of a non-religious nature.

[Paradox]

Were there homosexuals prior to the rise of Christianity?

I just realized that I forgot about the Greeks before I made the post asking this question. Sorry about that. Yes, I remember now hearing about homosexuality in ancient Greece. Guess I just blanked out for a minute there.


Alexander the Great of Macedon was (probably) gay. He had no children, and had a (very) close young male companion. People treated Alexander just fine. . .he scared the hell out of most people.

Yeah, I just remembered that they made a big deal about the movie Alexander because it portrays him as being gay. The Greeks were offended because they said that wasn't how Alexander really was.

So was religion the first source of hostility to homosexuality? Or were there non-religious groups that just saw it as abnormal?

[the masked avenger]

There is nothing wrong with Homosexuals or homosexual activity, no matter what it is, even marriage. The whole concept of conservatives making an argument against is idiotic and disgusting.

And yes Greeks had no problems with homosexuality.

[RedAnarchist]

Homosexuality was even encouraged in parts of Ancient Greece.

[ComradeChris]

Nothing wrong with same-sex unions. Or same-gender unions for that matter. I find the word marriage to be the problem. Wasn't it created by religion? I honestly prefer the term Union; it's a much more accepting term.

[vivalache22]

I feel same sex marriages should be allowed. Some people say "Well if we let gays marry, then what next people marring thier dogs" or "Marriage is to make babbies" If 2 humans want to be legally married they should be allowed

[Abstrakt]

well, to the question earlier from the last page about how, or why people become homosexual. Do you look at a woman and say "wow, i'm going to be able to plant a seed in her, and she will be able to birth a baby"? I believe, that love and attraction has nothing to do with giving birth..if that made sense.

Also, I believe that homophobia sprung from Religion. That whole sadom(sp) and ghamora(sp) shit(Which I honestly think didn't happen).

Plus, If you look at the dictionary online now, marriage is not defined as a man to a woman anymore.

[Hate Is Art]

If marriage is about procreation then what about people who are infertile??

[Pawn Power]

I think only same sex couples should be allowed to marrie.

[LostProphet001]

Well, it's been stated by many people, but In find nothing wrong with same-sex couples getting married, though I am wholly uncomfortable with the civil marriage contract. In an ideal world, marriage would be a purely spiritual union, and we would have something like "civil unions" in place to give the rights currently given to married couples to committed partners. This way, the zealots could have the word "marriage", without denying rights to same-sex couples.

[Polish Prince]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 26 2004, 08:01 PM
If marriage is about procreation then what about people who are infertile??
they try to recreate do they not prior to finding this out, plus this is a defect in your body, something gone wrong, if u say this them u can say that homosexuals have something wrong in them a defect, maybe in their brain

i myself don't support same sex marriage, if u think about it it originally was for man and women and i myself don't feel like changing the definition, so that angered homosexual couples have their way. if u don't like the definition too bad, make ur own term or definition for homosexual marriages, i don't mind calling it a union

[ComradeChris]

You know what saying pisses me off. My brother always say's, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Firstly he's not even religious and this is the only thing he can reply to when I ask him why he opposes same gender marriages. Only one of a plethura of reasons I hate my very capitalist brother.

[Rockfan]

yea here in nz we just had this whole thing about same sex marriges. We had this church lead (who you have to pay to be in his church) march to wellington and stuff. he rekons hes going to be the leader of the country in 15 years. im gona be the first to join the resistance if so. but i dont think so anyway.

[Abstrakt]

Originally posted by Polish Prince+Jan 3 2005, 04:05 AM--> (Polish Prince @ Jan 3 2005, 04:05 AM)
Digital [email protected] 26 2004, 08:01 PM
If marriage is about procreation then what about people who are infertile??
they try to recreate do they not prior to finding this out, plus this is a defect in your body, something gone wrong, if u say this them u can say that homosexuals have something wrong in them a defect, maybe in their brain

i myself don't support same sex marriage, if u think about it it originally was for man and women and i myself don't feel like changing the definition, so that angered homosexual couples have their way. if u don't like the definition too bad, make ur own term or definition for homosexual marriages, i don't mind calling it a union [/b]
Have you checked the definition of marriage? If not, I have a pretty good website for you: http://www.dictionary.com

You should check it out man ;)

[CommoditiesAretheOpiumofPeople]

Why is this thread even on here? For a start, if we're so leftist then we're for the equality and liberation of all people or none like somebody else said before. But marriage is such elitist bullshit: what gives the church the right to discriminate on any grounds? genuine love doesn't need to be poved by some antiquated ritual, if two people truly love each other then they'll both know it and that's enough. Anyone who ever proposes to me is gonna be told NO. Simply because i don't need any religion's blessing.

[Motorcycle_diAries]

Homosexual or Hetrosexual? Honeslty i don't give a damn bout that and people can do what they want to do. Cus as long as there is Love, why bother? Last time i checked what the world needs is more Love and less hate.

[act_5]

i agree that same sex marraige should be allowed but let me clarify one point:

its not rightwing religous bullshit, its rightwing bigot bullshit being justified by warping bible verses.

Bigot: see, right there! it says "dont let gays marry"
Me: ummm, i dont see it...
Bigot: of course you do you just have to squint real hard!
me: sure.....


The Canadian govt will be introducing a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and it should pass easily. No matter what Ralph Klein says, noone knows how many people are pro/anti gay marriage. I am an Albertan and he doesnt speak for me

you mean their are other albertan communists!?!?! wow, well if you'll excuse me i'm going outside to wait for the end of the world (wont be long now)

[Commie Girl]

OTTAWA - The Liberal government introduced its same-sex marriage bill in the House of Commons Tuesday, kicking off the next stage of a fierce debate that will spur some MPs to vote against party lines.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler tabled what he called the "landmark legislation" shortly after 10 a.m. EST.

At a subsequent news conference, Cotler described the Civil Marriage Act as protecting both minority rights and freedom of religion, so "that no religious officials will be forced to perform marriages that are contrary to their beliefs."

"There is no compromise in terms of freedom of religion," Prime Minister Paul Martin said as he left a cabinet meeting later in the morning.

"No church, no temple, no synagogue, no mosque, no religious official will be asked or forced to perform a marriage that is contrary to their beliefs."

Vic Toews, the Conservative party's justice critic, said religious protections in the bill don't go far enough.

Religious officials are protected, but not individual Canadians who don't hold a church office but want the right to refuse to have anything to do with gay marriage, he said.

That's why his party will try to amend the bill, limiting marriage to one man and one woman while offering homosexual couples full rights under some other type of civil union.

Toews cited several examples of people and groups whom the bill wouldn't protect:


-Civil marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who have been told they must perform same-sex ceremonies or lose their jobs.
-A Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia that is being brought before a human rights tribunal because the Catholic men's group won't rent space to a lesbian couple for their wedding reception.
-A person who offers a marriage preparation course for a Presbyterian congregation but is reluctant to advertise it in the community because he might have to open it up to gay couples.

Toews said his party is considering significant amendments to beef up the bill's protection for "conscientious objectors" to gay marriage, but doubted they would do much good in the event of a court challenge.

"What we are seeing is a consistent pattern," he said. "Whenever equality rights and religious rights collide, equality rights trump."

As well as extending the legal capacity to marry for civil purposes to same-sex couples, the package of legislation amends eight other federal acts to extend a variety of marital rights to gay couples, including income tax measures, business and investment benefits and the right to divorce.

It also prevents same-sex couples who are closely related from marrying, as federal legislation already does for opposite-sex couples.

Despite opposition from many Liberal backbenchers, the bill is expected to pass because most Bloc Québécois and New Democrat MPs support the right of homosexual couples to marry.

It comes after a series of provincial court decisions and a Supreme Court of Canada review of several questions posed by the Liberals leading up to the drafting of the new law.

Court decisions in several provinces and the Yukon territory have already struck down the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The new legislation will have the effect of making civil marriage legal for same-sex couples in Alberta, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, as it protects the right of individual religious congregations anywhere in Canada to refuse to perform or acknowledge gay marriages.

Church groups lining up to oppose bill

A loose alliance of church groups has vowed to fight the bill despite those protections, including Roman Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Orthodox Jewish congregations, as well as a variety of conservative Christian groups.

The United Church of Canada is among the smaller number of religious communities that have expressed support for gay marriage.

Both Liberal and Conservative MPs have been told they can vote freely, given how controversial the issue has proven over the past two years, but Liberal cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries must support the bill.

Only two members of the Bloc Québécois have indicated they won't support the bill, and only Manitoba New Democrat Bev Desjarlais has said she'll break party ranks to vote against it.

The issue has put the most strain on the Liberal party. Although a majority of Liberal MPs support the legislation, a number are opposed to the bill and are prepared to vote against it.

Martin, who is a Roman Catholic, has argued that the issue is about supporting minority rights. But he raised the ire of some who oppose the bill when he implied during his recent tour of Asia that he might take his party to the polls over the issue.

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/01/same-sex050201.html)

Martin has said Conservative Leader Stephen Harper would have to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

If Harper manages to push such an amendment through, Martin says he will seek a general election