Poll: Gay marriage

[Apone]

No, I am not, but I do note that not everything in life can be exactly equal.

But wait, I thought your point was that the only reason things couldn't be equal was because people couldn't be trusted to make things equal, but now they can... which is pretty hard to accept... but now even though you've pointed out the degree of inequality that inevitably arises from a 'separate but equal' situation, you still think it's a good idea?

So we have to come to some sense of balance and accept differences among people while promoting equality.

Yeah, and a good way to do that is to have same-sex marriage.

The fact of the matter is that gay couples can not be exactly equal to heterosexual couples. We have to acknowledge those differences in our attempts to achieve equality. A heterosexual couple is going to have different concerns than a homosexual couple even if they are analogous or approximately the same issues.

I can't think of one single obstacle that is so unthinkably difficult to surmount in this case. We're not talking about what goes where here, we're talking about commitments, legal privileges and families... and it's not like hetero marriages are perfect marvels in which nothing is ever complicated and nothing ever goes wrong.

If anything, I'd say gay couples are probably more likely to be absolutely incredible parents-- because it's not like they're accidentally getting pregnant, or being pressured by their parents, or doing so because it's what's expected of them. They never marry out of obligation or desperation-- there's an abundance of gay sexual opportunities out there, so many that you would never have to settle down if you don't want to. Gay people are actively choosing this-- and the fact that they actually have to fight for it actually makes it more meaningful.

Sorry to keep hammering on this but I actually feel pretty strongly about it.

 

[Nixie]

There is a difference between acceptance and rights though [MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION]. Being from a small minority myself, I don't care if you like my brown skin or not. I do not seek to force "acceptance" for who I am but will fight for the rights of The People and myself. It is a minor distinction with a huge difference in how you fight the good fight.

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION]

I believe you're under the mistaken impression that I'm arguing with you. I was just elaborating a bit.

Consider the idiom of comparing 'apples to oranges'. The idiom is meant to express the inability or incorrectness of comparing two distinctly different things. They are not exactly the same, BUT they are analogous or approximately the same when considered both as 'fruit'. That is the point I'm trying to relate. On the one hand, heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not exactly the same. The fact that we have two different words, i.e. homosexual and heterosexual, is a point of difference. On the other hand, they do share certain features in common that make them pretty much the same by both being relationships.

I think both sides of the argument would benefit by elaborating on their points to find common ground and also determine what significant differences will have to be acknowledged and confronted going forward. The most easily recognizable difference between the two would be concerning child-rearing practices of course. In this regard, heterosexual and homosexual couples will have differing approaches given that homosexual's concerns would largely be focused on adoption, surrogate, and artificial insemination practices and legislation that regulates those activities. Are they mostly the same as heterosexual couples? Yes, but not exactly the same. What happens in cases of divorce and consequently child custody? Who gets the child in a same sex couple? What happens if the biological parent has a change of mind and wants their child back? These are the issues that need to be taken into account.

 

[Apone]

I believe you're under the mistaken impression that I'm arguing with you. I was just elaborating a bit.

That's cool... I haven't really read through the whole thread to figure out who was saying what or who was on which side, I was just a little confused by your bringing up segregation and apparently defending it-- but I was wrong about that so fair enough.

Consider the idiom of comparing 'apples to oranges'. The idiom is meant to express the inability or incorrectness of comparing two distinctly different things. They are not exactly the same, BUT they are analogous or approximately the same when considered both as 'fruit'. That is the point I'm trying to relate. On the one hand, heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not exactly the same. The fact that we have two different words, i.e. homosexual and heterosexual, is a point of difference. On the other hand, they do share certain features in common that make them pretty much the same by both being relationships.

I think the point of contention here is the degree of difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships-- are they really so different that marriage as its defined now has to be completely overhauled, or that we actually need a new term for it? I don't think they are.

I'd say a western homosexual couple probably has more in common with a western heterosexual couple than either would have with say a Japanese couple or a Middle Eastern couple… and it's not like their marriages are nullified when they emigrate, are they?

So yeah, basically my point is that the differences are so extremely slight that it really isn't necessary to even consider them. Stable marriages are grounded by hard work, commitment, routine... not sexuality or gender. Most of the other factors you would take into account-- lifestyle, personality, etc... can't be generalized and are not specific to either orientation.

We seem to have an entire thread of people repeatedly insisting that there are differences as if it's a complicated, frustrating, difficult obstacle, but not really being able to provide any examples that pertain specifically to marriage… so yeah, that's kind of frustrating.

I think both sides of the argument would benefit by elaborating on their points to find common ground and also determine what significant differences will have to be acknowledged and confronted going forward. The most easily recognizable difference between the two would be concerning child-rearing practices of course. In this regard, heterosexual and homosexual couples will have differing approaches given that homosexual's concerns would largely be focused on adoption, surrogate, and artificial insemination practices and legislation that regulates those activities. Are they mostly the same as heterosexual couples? Yes, but not exactly the same. What happens in cases of divorce and consequently child custody? Who gets the child in a same sex couple? What happens if the biological parent has a change of mind and wants their child back? These are the issues that need to be taken into account.

I think I've already mentioned that conception/bearing children, while definitely not in any way an easy thing, isn't as important as actually raising the child and giving him/her the attention he/she needs... I know it's not the same, my point is that I don't think that the differences are in any way relevant.

As for custody-- I guess you're referring to the tendency of children to become the mother's responsibility in different-sex marriages. Personally, I think that this is also pretty antiquated and in a lot of cases it's a huge sore point. Also, my adopted cousin contacted her birth mother when she was a little older-- but as for custody, I don't know the specifics but I'm pretty sure there are things in place for that... and even if they weren't, it's still not an issue that would be unique to same-sex marriages... unless you get a bigoted judge or something... which is pretty rare, I think, because those people tend to take their jobs pretty seriously.

And furthermore, I don't think that these issues are necessarily related to marriage-- you can be married and not have a family. You can also have children and not be married. You can sign a prenup. You can work out a custody arrangement independently. And if it gets ugly, it definitely wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

No, I am not, but I do note that not everything in life can be exactly equal. So we have to come to some sense of balance and accept differences among people while promoting equality. The fact of the matter is that gay couples can not be exactly equal to heterosexual couples. We have to acknowledge those differences in our attempts to achieve equality. A heterosexual couple is going to have different concerns than a homosexual couple even if they are analogous or approximately the same issues.

Right, the best way to respect differences/concerns/interests is first of all to acknowledge them.



Calling a life-long commited gay couple married is very different from the law acknowledging commited gay couples legal perogative. The former obliterates the category, or subsumes it - the latter requires a real change.

 

[Quiet]

As we continue to evolve and expand our conciousness, our ideas of marriage are going to expand as we accomodate more people and their lifestyles.
I think we are close to acheiving marriage equality, and it probably wont be an issue for future generations. This will mean massive changes in how we live together, our lifestyles and how we birth and raise children. All exciting things Im looking foward to and I know we can adapt to.

And there is a possibility that marriage will be stretched out further in the future, past our current limited cultural conception of a partnership. There are cultures in different parts of the world that have polygamous relationships or live in group relationship situations. It will be really fascinating to see how cultures will react and adapt to these new possibilities

 

[Kgal]

Received this in my inbox a few minutes ago. Good news and good timing for this thread - eh?

****President Obama just announced that he supports marriage equality for all Americans.

He joins many of us who have long-supported marriage equality because of what it tells our country -- and the entire world -- that all of America’s families deserve the benefits of equal protection under the law.

Yet, there will undoubtedly be opposition. At this historic moment, we must show that the American people support extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to LGBT citizens.

Add your name right now to stand with President Obama in support of marriage equality >>

While this is a proud moment, our fight for marriage equality is far from over -- there will be challenges in the days ahead.

We must continue to fight — in the courts, in state legislatures, and in Congress — until all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans are guaranteed fair treatment in our country.

Add your name right now to stand with President Obama in support of marriage equality:

http://dccc.org/Marriage-Equality

Thank you,

Nancy*****

 

[Apone]

I was reading the article about it on yahoo, and almost all of the against comments include:

-some sort of anti-gay epithet.
-quoting of scripture or mention of Christianity, sin or evil, with the implication that all Christians are pure, holy perfect people and all gays are dirty vile soulless inhuman pieces of shit.
-the suggestion that both Obama and Biden are gay themselves.

No surprises there.

 

[Rferraris]

El presidente. Looks like the gay marriage loving people from the US will get their way, maybe.

I just hope this pisses my dad off to no end.

 

[kyo]

I was reading the article about it on yahoo, and almost all of the against comments include:

-some sort of anti-gay epithet.
-quoting of scripture or mention of Christianity, sin or evil, with the implication that all Christians are pure, holy perfect people and all gays are dirty vile soulless inhuman pieces of shit.
-the suggestion that both Obama and Biden are gay themselves.

No surprises there.

That's just sad, is it not!

 

[Saru Inc]

There should be an option for not sure/not sure.

Its states rights.


And the last thing I need is a civil union war, where homos sshoot noxious glitter bombs full of cyanide gas and bleach, and kill all breeders wearing white after labor day. Nor do I want to see breeders throwing gays off of bridges because clementi was a person to! And at the end it gets better when Dan savage and Obama get married and then have sex in front of everyone to the point the gays enact the Fabio Lavender laws in the breeder states making all straight bros lesser citizens under the law. Then Tim gunn goes all gunn hoe as a wanna be al sharpton and finally gays will be something else besides a British cigarette and a bundle of sticks. You know what they will be now?


The official tools of Barack mother fucking Obama.



What Obama did today is disgusting. I understand that under Romney I probably won't be allowed to marry a man that I love. But under Obama all I am is a tool to get him elected. The bitch said his views was evolving, while talking to his family and god? Sorry, not god, that's racist against Muslims. While he read part of the bible I should say.

Bullshit, he needs a new speech writer, that shit was so fabricated it disgusts me.


And to all my gay bros and sis' , understand what Obama and the left are doing to us. In Russia they passed the st petersburg law stating anything gay is illegal. This is what the left does, what the left thinks is right, is right and if you don't agree youre wrong. While yes many republicans do think gay marriage is wrong that's more coincidence then anything. Because true conservatism means you decide for yourself what's right. No one can tell you different. With The left they've made minorities women and gays slaved to them,despite the fact the inherent racism born into the left. Oh yeah, and so hire a black person because it's racist not to.


But uhh,in regards to the single greatest miracle in life? The one that makes you look fat? Oh yeah just inject saline and burn it to death. I recommend force flex glad bags when disposing of it. In fact, because a radio host said something insulting to a girl, the govt will pay for it.no, not Howard stern.

 

[Quiet]

[MENTION=3156]Saru Inc[/MENTION] you seem very frustrated by the decision.
Why is that?
Do you think that Obama is being insincere?
What would be your preffered outcome?

 

[Saru Inc]

I'm outraged as a gay man that my love is a political bargaining chip. I respect Romney more for saying He does not like gays, then obama to be like ehhhhhhhhhfor 6 years then in one week it's "oh nvm I like gays oh btw vote for me" and it's the fact that in America you have the right to speak your mind. And as weird as weird as this sounds sometimes I want to go anti gay protests in support because those who love me, and those who hate me both deserve a chance to say it. And this country lately ( or at least I've just started noticing) has been deciding on a side, and then shouting down anyone who opposes it. That's not what this country is about. And if I don't allow people to voice their dismay at my existence, no one will be there to voice their dismay at my death.



Now all in all that's not really tied into gay marriage, as much as it is I feel cheated and used by the left. Which is why I go conservative. Not republican mind you, but conservative.

Keep in mind I'm typing this in my iPad and it fucks up text

edit: didn't mean to blow a gasket in the previous post. This is just a big issue with me, and I'm tired of gays saying go left or go home.

 

[Quiet]

I'm outraged as a gay man that my love is a political bargaining chip. I respect Romney more for saying He does not like gays, then obama to be like ehhhhhhhhhfor 6 years then in one week it's "oh nvm I like gays oh btw vote for me" and it's the fact that in America you have the right to speak your mind. And as weird as weird as this sounds sometimes I want to go anti gay protests in support because those who love me, and those who hate me both deserve a chance to say it. And this country lately ( or at least I've just started noticing) has been deciding on a side, and then shouting down anyone who opposes it. That's not what this country is about. And if I don't allow people to voice their dismay at my existence, no one will be there to voice their dismay at my death.

Now all in all that's not really tied into gay marriage, as much as it is I feel cheated and used by the left. Which is why I go conservative. Not republican mind you, but conservative.

Keep in mind I'm typing this in my iPad and it fucks up text

I hear what you're saying. Unfortunately this issue, like other minority issues, is used as a bargaining chip by politicans. It does cheapen and disrespect the issue. It is so tacky how many politicians sell themselves to the highest bidder. I do support Obama, but Im not an American and dont know enough about the situation to make any informed comment. I absolutely agree with you that everyone should have the right to voice their opinion, no matter what side of the debate they are on. Thats what a healthy democracy and freedom of speech is about.

 

[88chaz88]

I'm outraged as a gay man that my love is a political bargaining chip. I respect Romney more for saying He does not like gays, then obama to be like ehhhhhhhhhfor 6 years then in one week it's "oh nvm I like gays oh btw vote for me" and it's the fact that in America you have the right to speak your mind.

I don't feel that your belief that Obama is just saying this for votes is right. Considering the majority of Americans are against gay marriage which is even evident in some blue states such as North Carolina, coming out and saying you're for it in the face of an election is incredibly gutsy. I wouldn't be surprised if this loses him more votes than it potentionally won.

 

[Rferraris]

I don't feel that your belief that Obama is just saying this for votes is right. Considering the majority of Americans are against gay marriage which is even evident in some blue states such as North Carolina, coming out and saying you're for it in the face of an election is incredibly gutsy. I wouldn't be surprised if this loses him more votes than it potentionally won.

People that would have voted for Obama haven't changed their minds, they will still vote for him although maybe with more pride. People that weren't going to vote for him probably still won't. I speculate that these people haven't changed their minds. Their hate has intensified and good for them.
The undecided I doubt are persuaded.
It's like gee, I was gonna vote democratic until that democratic president went ahead and acted all Democrat like. I mean really how many Democrats are going to vote for Romney. How many independents are now going to vote Romney. Maybe he will lose. But I doubt this us the game changer. But maybe. Either way I'm proud.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

I'm outraged as a gay man that my love is a political bargaining chip. I respect Romney more for saying He does not like gays, then obama to be like ehhhhhhhhhfor 6 years then in one week it's "oh nvm I like gays oh btw vote for me" and it's the fact that in America you have the right to speak your mind. And as weird as weird as this sounds sometimes I want to go anti gay protests in support because those who love me, and those who hate me both deserve a chance to say it. And this country lately ( or at least I've just started noticing) has been deciding on a side, and then shouting down anyone who opposes it. That's not what this country is about. And if I don't allow people to voice their dismay at my existence, no one will be there to voice their dismay at my death.



Now all in all that's not really tied into gay marriage, as much as it is I feel cheated and used by the left. Which is why I go conservative. Not republican mind you, but conservative.

Keep in mind I'm typing this in my iPad and it fucks up text

edit: didn't mean to blow a gasket in the previous post. This is just a big issue with me, and I'm tired of gays saying go left or go home.

Big ups to you my homie. This is what I call "rising above". By thinking this way you are empowering the LGBT community more than the "go left or go home" types. You are respecting people for their beliefs. When people acknowledge that you respect them for their beliefs they are more likely to respect you for yours.

I have noticed the same paradox with religion. Non-religious people tend to look down on religious people and by doing so they become religious people themselves.

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
(Matthew 5.43-45 ESV)

 

[this is only temporary]

People that would have voted for Obama haven't changed their minds, they will still vote for him although maybe with more pride. People that weren't going to vote for him probably still won't. I speculate that these people haven't changed their minds. Their hate has intensified and good for them.
The undecided I doubt are persuaded.
It's like gee, I was gonna vote democratic until that democratic president went ahead and acted all Democrat like. I mean really how many Democrats are going to vote for Romney. How many independents are now going to vote Romney. Maybe he will lose. But I doubt this us the game changer. But maybe. Either way I'm proud.

hm -- not so sure I agree. There are people who are politically conservative and there are people who don't like gays, usually for religious reasons.
These two groups are not at all the same thing, but they both get labeled "conservative" and frequently vote republican.

From what I've observed and heard from people around me talking, the more moderate conservative types (meaning the ones who do not persecute gays) are rather appalled and disgusted by the amount of effort and money spent on this issue, and some probably will change their minds and vote for Obama. At any rate, I predict he will win the next election, unless I am totally reading this whole situation wrong.

I don't think it has "intensified their hate" at all, at least not based on the people I've been listening to (people who are NOT Rush Limbaugh, in other words). Rather, they will probably pressure republicans to focus more on issues that actually matter and not spend so much time persecuting gays in a desperate bid to win votes from the most extreme members of that party, who get the most attention but are not (I believe) the majority.

(And P.S. I also don't believe for a second that Obama would have done this if he hadn't been fairly well convinced it would win him votes. He has pollsters and PR people and all manner of experts advising him. Their job is to get him reelected, and I am willing to bet they know what they are doing.)

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I hear what you are saying. it would be counterproductive if we considered homosexual marriage to be an honourary marriage in leiu of a 'true' hetrosexual marriage. This would not create equality, it would only highlight inherent inequality. In regards to men and women, as @Apone mentioned earlier, women and men are both considered employees, or citizens, people, members etc. The gender is only relevant in indentifying people biologically and culturally, but becomes irrelevant when affording individuals rights. Women are still not afforded the same rights as men, because of all the sematic bias in our cultures. The distinction of men and women is fine as long as we realise and accept that both sexes are 'people' and fall under the overaching banner of 'human', and all humans need to be afforded the same equal rights.

I do appreciate your wish to have concise semantic meaning. How would you feel if it was labelled like this:
hetrosexual marriage, lesbian marriage and gay marriage? That way all these partnership fall under the same banner of 'marriage' but they are semantically distinctive.

"Heterosexual marriage" is redundant, like saying "feline cat", or "canine dog".

I am honestly surprised that the lobby did not try to redefine the word 'heterosexual' to include male/male and female/female relationships: gay-marriage is as loopy a term as 'same sex heterosexuals'.

 

[manatee]

I don't feel that your belief that Obama is just saying this for votes is right. Considering the majority of Americans are against gay marriage which is even evident in some blue states such as North Carolina, coming out and saying you're for it in the face of an election is incredibly gutsy. I wouldn't be surprised if this loses him more votes than it potentionally won.

don't you think bringing the issue up might motivate (votivate) people who would otherwise not vote?

"Heterosexual marriage" is redundant, like saying "feline cat", or "canine dog".

I am honestly surprised that the lobby did not try to redefine the word 'heterosexual' to include male/male and female/female relationships: gay-marriage is as loopy a term as 'same sex heterosexuals'.

prescriptivism is odd.