Same Sex Marriage Debate
 

A few years ago, I was in Chicago visiting a friend in her house. One of her fellow friends?a woman ?announced to all of us that she was a lesbian living with her partner. That led me into a friendly but rather lively exchange with her later that evening.

After the group had dinner, Mary- the girl- and I were engaging in small talk in the lounge of the restaurant. Now, I really like Mary?she is outgoing, witty, and certainly good at her profession. So when the other folks were a few feet out of earshot, I decided to ask her a little bit more about herself.

?Mary,? I said, ?Do you mind if I ask you a personal question??

Since Mary is very direct, she was all for it.

?No, go ahead!? she said.

Being as discrete and unassuming as I could, I asked with a smile (you always have to smile in situations like this), ?You mentioned that you?re living with your partner. Do you find the gay lifestyle difficult? Has your family accepted it? Are they happy with it??

Mary straightened up and adopted a more assertive tone.

?Of course they?ve accepted it! I come from a very enlightened family. They are very happy for me and just want me to be happy.?

?What do you think about it?? she said, turning the tables on me, with a slight hint of a smile.

What do you think??? Share your thoughts & Beliefs.

Love,
Loura...

I have no problem with it at all. If they are in love with each other, why wouldn't they get married if they decided to? They don't all want to get married, but it is nice to have that choice, right?:)

This should be the shortest debate ever. Like the Facebook group is called that I joined after it was started by a young friend of mine:

Against Gay Marriage? Then Don't Get One and Shut the Fuck Up.

Whatever two people want to do should be no one else’s business. I don’t believe the state should be in the business of regulating “lifestyles.” Finally, a partner should have the same legal rights and benefits as a spouse. Therefore, yes, I am for same sex marriage. Speaking entirely for myself, I really don’t understand why it is still “prohibited.”

As for your friend’s family, I detect a hint that all is not as it should be, I hope they find it in their hearts to accept her and her partner just as they are.

One day none of this will be an issue anymore. :cool:

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger went off reservation when he said that if two people love each other, why should the state of California come between them? I think that's the modern way to look at it, but in small towns, where there are no secrets and nobody locks doors, I don't know why a gay couple would want to live there if they got hassled everyday. You can't live on Love alone.
Washington DC just OK'd Gay Marriage but there's more to it than just being open-minded. Like the thousands of dollars that would go into the Economy from all the marriages. Gay gouples also are known to transform ghettoes into gorgeous neighborhoods. .

This is pretty straightforward. If 2 people are in love, then they should have the option of getting a marriage. Those 2 people getting married doesn't affect anybody, but themselves and their families and friends. I can't believe this is still being debated.

I'm all for same sex marriage. I'm glad that I live in a country where same sex marriage is allowed. Same sex marriage takes nothing away from anyone and gives legal rights and legitimacy to everyone that wants to get married.

I don't see how the act of two people getting married should affect families and friends of those two people. It affects the people getting married and no one else.

I didn't mean anything bad about that comment. What I meant was that it would affect your family because you're bringing in a new family member. I'm not sure how this wouldn't affect family relations for better or worse.

Actually, DON'T expect Washington, DC same-sex marriage to stand for very long. Long story short, what the City Council did was basically issue a ruling allowing it... in fact, they specifically wrote the legislation with a provision saying they wouldn't allow any future challenges to their decision... but that obviously circumvented the people of Washington, DC and clearly prevented them from having ANY say in the matter, which they're now demanding a right to do.

When they rammed through their ruling, the city council knew they were on wobbily legs legally.
As an article over at the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes...

"The same-sex marriage battle has intensified this week. Bishop Harry Jackson and his congressional supporters argued in court that the city's election authority should allow same-sex marriage to be voted on, while filing a request for another vote overturning the same-sex marriage law passed by the D.C. Council and signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty. They told the D.C. Agenda that their strategy involves filing as many requests for votes and responding with consequent lawsuits until a court agrees with them."

Needless to say -- and especially in a city like Washington, DC that is overflowing with lawyers -- it won't take long to find a judge/court who will agree with the petitioners that the City Council overstepped its authority. So, it might take a little time, but expect a ballot initiative to be put forward for a public vote, much like California had Prop 8.

It's utterly insane how a developed country can oppose this. I expect this sort of crap from somewhere like Uganda, still suffering from the legacy of colonialism and yet to pull itself into the 20h century, let alone the 21st, but America ought to have come further than this...

When it comes to overcoming legacies, the former colonies of Africa are -- in many respects -- decades ahead of America's ability to overcome the legacy that keeps it from embracing gay marriage rights nationwide. That legacy is Puritanism, the basis for America's initial settlement by whites. And it is Puritanism that makes this the most backward countries of the developed world with respect to everything from nudity on television to universal healthcare provided by the government as a basic human right.

So, Amy, you shouldn't be so surprised.

same sex marriage
 

:turnon:I have no problem with it,it's legal here in Canada.I,d like to be some guy's/ladyboy's bride someday!

i would like to get married one of these days

In the words of Seth Mcfarlane: these people just want to get on with their fucking lives.

Come to Canada, Katie. It is legal for you to get married here.

How did I not know this?

Or you could come here to Massachusetts ... the first state to follow the Canadian model of keeping the hell out of people's business when it comes to who wants to get married!

And when that day occurs, I wish you the most wonderful of days.:) You will make a lovely bride.:respect::)

It's already legal here, as long as the ceremony isn't in a church.

Just wondering.... why would it be up to the government to allow same sex marriage?

"Just wondering" ... yeah, right.

Tracy Coxx knows the answer to the question. The post looks designed to shift the discussion in this thread to another right-wing discussion about the role of government.

The issue is that governments DIS-allow same-sex marriages, either by tradition or, increasingly, by statute. The point of codifying the right to same-sex marriage is about the other rights that come with being married. For instance, in the United States, these rights run the gamut from certain categories of tax filings that are beneficial to couples to things like being able to visit dying partners in hospitals and help make decisions for them.

But Tracy Coxx knows all this. Tracy Coxx is intelligent, but Tracy Coxx has a problem with discussing things in a forthright manner.

Maybe because the government already restricts it. :rolleyes:

Looks like someone else is on to Tracy ... ;)

I want to correct myself. It's allowed since November 2009 to get married in a church over here. I wasn't updated on this matter since I'm a atheist and don't really care about what the church thinks.

Marriage is a religious construct. If you want to get married, go to your church and get married.

Marriage is also a civil matter. In some countries the only marriage that is recognized is the civil ceremony. Also there are people that don't go to churches or mosques or temples so for them their only recourse is a civil marriage.

As a civil matter, it should be left to the states then, not the federal government. (speaking about the US of course). And Kitty, the US government does not currently restrict it.

So, then, Tracy Coxx, you will endorse the full abrogation of all laws and rights that are tied to marriage, and the enactment of a U.S. Constitutional amendment guaranteeing full rights to all regardless of marital status?

That means changing the U.S. tax code that allows married couple special benefits. That means a federal law barring discrimination in hospitals and requiring that all partners be allowed access to patients and decisionmaking rights in patient care if the patient so stipulates, regardless of marital status. Etc.

You brought up "government," Tracy Coxx, but you never wrote "federal" until now. To answer Kaiti, you change the playing field. Nice try.

Is that what's known as "moving the goal posts"?

If you wanted to avoid parroting others and still felt the need to add your two cents you might want to instead point out that the government I was initially talking about is the federal government since I had already mentioned the first amendment from the US Constitution. You might then say that I had only mentioned state governments when Ila brought up the civil side of marriage, and that once state governments were brought up I would clarify further statements by distinguishing federal governments from state governments.

It looks like most of the Republican presidential candidates want the Federal government to ban same sex marriage:

http://www.thirdage.com/news/rick-pe...gop_08-28-2011

Post #20 ... first post you made in this thread. No mention of the 1st amendment, or of the federal government. Thus, your explanation stretches the meaning of the word "initially" in the phrase "initially talking about."

Yes. I noticed that too but thought perhaps that the previous posts had been deleted or something.

Thanks, smc. :respect:

That's funny. I was merely asking for clarification. I wasn't sure if you were moving the goal posts. But hey who gives a shit. It's easier to come after me than address the people who were really criticizing you.

And yet they all cry to get the fedral goverment out of our lives
Except when it come to Marriage and abortions
:frown: Jerseygirl Jen

A very good observation.
I think it's basically pandering to their conservative religious base. Hypocrisy rules in Washington.
If all those politicians that complain about big government would leave government, the country would be better off.

I think you and Jen are both correct. The ?right? seems to have no problem interfering when it suits their own agenda. I am afraid that if things continue as they are the United States will eventually become a right-wing Christian ?theocracy? beholden to gigantic multinational corporate interests and the top 1% of wealth holders. Science and inquiry as well as individual expression will be suppressed. This, at least to me, is not what I believe our ?founding fathers? had in mind over 200 years ago. :(

the fact that this is a debate blows me away. fortunately, another few years will take care of it.