The gay marriage issue.

[Anonymous]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html

[Anonymous]

I am interested in the studies that look at children of gay fathers. I wonder why more research has not been done there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the zone of privacy extends to whom you choose to be in your bedroom with you. The Supreme Court has recognized as much by overturning Bowers v. Hardwick and deciding (in Wells I think it was, but someone please post the case name if I am wrong) that sodomy laws that prohibited that form of behavior between consenting same sex partners could not stand. I see no basis on which to distinguish the right to have a legally recognized marriage between two people of the same gender. My DH thinks we would all be better off if everyone was required to have a civil union license to be "married" in the eyes of the state. He thinks marriage by the church and "marriage" by the state should be completely separate - one a spiritual union and one a legal one. I think he's right. I would be happy to go and re-do my marriage license to have it signed by a judge or other public official instead of a minister. It's the intellectually honest thing to do with this issue.

I had to stop reading these responses because they were just depressing. I am a lesbian mom. While I do not have any interest in marriage for myself, it offers a lot of legal protection. I agree with the PP's husband. If marriage is a sacred union or a union before god, then government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business. Make civil unions the only option and leave marriage to the churches.

I have several friends that were denied access to their partners in the hospital. I know some who were left with financial disasters when the main breadwinner left. I even know of a couple of people denied access to children that they helped raise from birth. This is the reality of the debate for us. Married couples already have legal remedy for these problems while we are left having to beg for some consideration. These problems can very negatively affect someone's life, and it is ok with everyone because one day polygamists might want to marry?

Pardon me while I laugh at these bullshit excuses.

To opponents of equal rights: please, consider being denied access to your children with no legal remedy and get back to us with how you might feel.

Yes. But why "marriage"? Why not "civil union" with all the rights described above? Why does it have to be "marriage"??

[Anonymous]

Rosie is getting separated. Just seemed apropos somehow.

[Anonymous]

Please don't be rude, I really want to know because I've never understood the born gay thing. How is this possible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. But why "marriage"? Why not "civil union" with all the rights described above? Why does it have to be "marriage"??

Because civil union does not have all the rights of marriage, so they'd still have to fight for them one by one. I think that in order to solve the problem, we have to go to the solution suggested earlier, where the state simply drops its involvement with marriage, and called the relationship it recognizes exactly what it is, namely a civil (i.e. state sanctioned) union (i.e. relationship between two people), and leaves holy matrimony to the holy institutions. Why does that seem like such a no-brainer to me?
[Boy, if there ever was a straight line, that's it! Can you resist the urge to supply the punch line?]

[Anonymous]

So why can't you sign a living will type document that gives someone authority to make decisions for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please don't be rude, I really want to know because I've never understood the born gay thing. How is this possible?

I don't think it literally means that there are gay babies and straight babies, but that the determining factors are genetic rather than environmental. Babies can't play music, but while most anyone can probably be trained to play chopsticks on the piano, don't you think Mozart and Ellington were "born musical"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. But why "marriage"? Why not "civil union" with all the rights described above? Why does it have to be "marriage"??

Because civil union does not have all the rights of marriage, so they'd still have to fight for them one by one. I think that in order to solve the problem, we have to go to the solution suggested earlier, where the state simply drops its involvement with marriage, and called the relationship it recognizes exactly what it is, namely a civil (i.e. state sanctioned) union (i.e. relationship between two people), and leaves holy matrimony to the holy institutions. Why does that seem like such a no-brainer to me?
[Boy, if there ever was a straight line, that's it! Can you resist the urge to supply the punch line?]

Again, only two?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please don't be rude, I really want to know because I've never understood the born gay thing. How is this possible?

I don't think it literally means that there are gay babies and straight babies, but that the determining factors are genetic rather than environmental. Babies can't play music, but while most anyone can probably be trained to play chopsticks on the piano, don't you think Mozart and Ellington were "born musical"?

It is a complex issue, but the jury is still out on how much is inborn. Be careful with the word "genetic", that is different than in born. Many of the common theories have to do with hormonal exposure in utero (that is environmental rather than genetic) that have an effect on the developing brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please don't be rude, I really want to know because I've never understood the born gay thing. How is this possible?

I don't think it literally means that there are gay babies and straight babies, but that the determining factors are genetic rather than environmental. Babies can't play music, but while most anyone can probably be trained to play chopsticks on the piano, don't you think Mozart and Ellington were "born musical"?

I think that they were born musical but had they never had an instrument to play we might never have known of their talents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. But why "marriage"? Why not "civil union" with all the rights described above? Why does it have to be "marriage"??

Because civil union does not have all the rights of marriage, so they'd still have to fight for them one by one. I think that in order to solve the problem, we have to go to the solution suggested earlier, where the state simply drops its involvement with marriage, and called the relationship it recognizes exactly what it is, namely a civil (i.e. state sanctioned) union (i.e. relationship between two people), and leaves holy matrimony to the holy institutions. Why does that seem like such a no-brainer to me?
[Boy, if there ever was a straight line, that's it! Can you resist the urge to supply the punch line?]

Again, only two?

Old poster here. Why are you still hung up on this polygamy thing? As I posted before, the institution of marriage did not fall apart when we made interracial marriage constitutional. It had a strong a historical and legal prohibition around it. When interracial marriage was allowed, it was done with the exact same logic that is now being applied in the case of gay marriage. And yet we were not forced to accept polygamy once blacks and whites could marry. There was no moral or constitutional crisis as a result of that move, and therefore there will be no such crisis if we accept gay marriage. In short, the polygamy argument is a scare tactic and a sham argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that they were born musical but had they never had an instrument to play we might never have known of their talents.

That would have been a tragedy, and I am sure it has happened many times in history. Just like the gays who remain closeted in societies that do not allow their love to speak its name. I suspect that may have been your implicit message -- forgive me for being simple enough to want to make it explicit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because civil union does not have all the rights of marriage, so they'd still have to fight for them one by one. I think that in order to solve the problem, we have to go to the solution suggested earlier, where the state simply drops its involvement with marriage, and called the relationship it recognizes exactly what it is, namely a civil (i.e. state sanctioned) union (i.e. relationship between two people), and leaves holy matrimony to the holy institutions. Why does that seem like such a no-brainer to me?
[Boy, if there ever was a straight line, that's it! Can you resist the urge to supply the punch line?]

Again, only two?

The punch line I was expecting was "Because you've got no brain!" But yours is better, since it shows my brainlessness rather than just saying it. You're quite right that a union can be of any number of people. The word "two" popped out without my thinking about it. Although I know that I strongly support gay marriage, I don't feel prepared to take a position on legalizing polygamy/polyandry.

Is there a name for a communal group that's poly on both sides -- or one that's poly-same sex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I had to stop reading these responses because they were just depressing. I am a lesbian mom. While I do not have any interest in marriage for myself, it offers a lot of legal protection. I agree with the PP's husband. If marriage is a sacred union or a union before god, then government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business. Make civil unions the only option and leave marriage to the churches.

I have several friends that were denied access to their partners in the hospital. I know some who were left with financial disasters when the main breadwinner left. I even know of a couple of people denied access to children that they helped raise from birth. This is the reality of the debate for us. Married couples already have legal remedy for these problems while we are left having to beg for some consideration. These problems can very negatively affect someone's life, and it is ok with everyone because one day polygamists might want to marry?

Pardon me while I laugh at these bullshit excuses.

To opponents of equal rights: please, consider being denied access to your children with no legal remedy and get back to us with how you might feel.

Yes. But why "marriage"? Why not "civil union" with all the rights described above? Why does it have to be "marriage"??

Did you read my post? I think there should be no more state licensed "marriage"...for gays or straight couples. Civil unions for everyone.