How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten me?

[Anonymous]

Marriage under the law is a strange concept. It is like baptism under the law.
Should be just civil unions, leave marriage to the churches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the logic of most on this thread, there should be no limits on marriage between any two consenting adults. It is a "basic human right" as some have put it. Please state any rationale you would have to prohibit marriage by consenting family members.

Genetics. Duh. It is and has always been the reason.

Between two brothers or sisters? Not holding water there.

Show me some examples. If there are none then your point is moot. God may not have created any.

Google has lots of hits for "gay incest", if that's what your question meant.

But since the question has been raised, would marriage give a pair of co-habiting brothers or sisters any rights they don't already have?

Yes, it would. 1. I would give them the rights under the law afforded to married couples, such as tax treatment, etc. 2. It would allow them to call their union "marriage". This seems to be the biggest issue to the gays who are not satisfied with having all the rights of marriage but having to call it a civil union.

The problem is that a civil union does NOT provide all the rights of marriage. The fact is, a gay couple (or any couple) could call themselves whatever they want. My fiance and I could refer to each other as husband and wife and no one could stop us. We wouldn't reap the legal benefits of marriage, but we can call ourselves whatever we damn well please. The primary problem, largely stemming from DOMA, is that gays are denied certain privileges that are currently allowed only to married couples at the federal level. Health insurance, inheritance, taxes... all are privileges explicitly reserved for married couples, thus denying them to gays and lesbians.

So it a Civil Union was modified to include all of the legal rights of marriage, t hen the gays would be happy? Get all of the benefits, but not called "marriage". Marriage is preserved as a union between a man and a woman, and a civil union is the joining of two other individuals (might as well include related same sex family member too in there). Each would afford the same rights under the law, but have a differing name. Does that solve the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

By the logic of most on this thread, there should be no limits on marriage between any two consenting adults. It is a "basic human right" as some have put it. Please state any rationale you would have to prohibit marriage by consenting family members.

Actually many states do allow marriages between 1st cousins and other states that do not still recognize those marriages. More on point though to the principal is that several states that allow first cousin marriage do so under the restriction that one party must not be able to bear children. There is no protection of a religion belief going on or even moral issue. The restriction is about the high likelihood of genetic disorders. In a gay marriage, clearly both parents can not bear children so the principals for establishing a restriction on first cousins in some states would not apply.

So why would anyone who supports gay marriage oppose marriage between direct family members if no children could be had? They could then adopt. Many orphaned kids need a loving well balanced home like that.

[Anonymous]

Incest is not homosexuality. You're derailing the conversation with this bullshit. We're NOT asking to marry our siblings. We're asking to marry our partners. It's not a slippery slope. We want the same rights you have to protect your family. If your real defense is that you think gay siblings will be asking to be married, you're grasping at straws. It's utter crap and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it a Civil Union was modified to include all of the legal rights of marriage, t hen the gays would be happy? Get all of the benefits, but not called "marriage". Marriage is preserved as a union between a man and a woman, and a civil union is the joining of two other individuals (might as well include related same sex family member too in there). Each would afford the same rights under the law, but have a differing name. Does that solve the problem?

I think that a few years back, there was a large contingent of gays who felt that marriage might be too much to hope for, and it would be better strategy to work for civil union. But that meant a lot of extra work in each state to be sure to get all the benefits of marriage, and it also meant gays would still be second class citizens. Once public sentiment made marriage a more realistic possibility, the arguments for the more limited strategy lost ground.

[Anonymous]

Civil unions are too little, too late. America had it's chance to make a compromise that appeased those who were not comfortable with gay people. It did nothing.

Now the demographic trend is inevitable. Each new generation is more welcoming than the on before it. The oldest Americans will not be voting forever.

Look at the to the pew forum data. It is inevitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm currently living in MN where the state senate jusst approved adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The House will surely approve as well, then it will go on the ballot in Nov 2008. Apparently this will help protect and benefit me in some way. I'm a heterosexual mid thirties married Christian female with three children. What serious threat to me or my family is being avoided by ensuring gays cannot marry? What benefits will my family and me receive? If this is such a serious issue that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I'd like to understand why, exactly.

My tiny little brain just can't process how denying rights to others will improve my marriage, strengthen my family, or make the world safer for my children.

No you are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm currently living in MN where the state senate jusst approved adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The House will surely approve as well, then it will go on the ballot in Nov 2008. Apparently this will help protect and benefit me in some way. I'm a heterosexual mid thirties married Christian female with three children. What serious threat to me or my family is being avoided by ensuring gays cannot marry? What benefits will my family and me receive? If this is such a serious issue that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I'd like to understand why, exactly.

My tiny little brain just can't process how denying rights to others will improve my marriage, strengthen my family, or make the world safer for my children.

No you are not.

When Jesus comes from the clouds and speaks on the subject of gay marriage, let me know. He did however speak volumes about divorce, and yet I see Christians divorcing all the time. Hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

To set the record straight, marrying cousins is not that dangerous wrt having kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To set the record straight, marrying cousins is not that dangerous wrt having kids.

Yes and that is why some states already allow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the logic of most on this thread, there should be no limits on marriage between any two consenting adults. It is a "basic human right" as some have put it. Please state any rationale you would have to prohibit marriage by consenting family members.

Genetics. Duh. It is and has always been the reason.

Between two brothers or sisters? Not holding water there.

Show me some examples. If there are none then your point is moot. God may not have created any.

Google has lots of hits for "gay incest", if that's what your question meant.

But since the question has been raised, would marriage give a pair of co-habiting brothers or sisters any rights they don't already have?

Yes, it would. 1. I would give them the rights under the law afforded to married couples, such as tax treatment, etc. 2. It would allow them to call their union "marriage". This seems to be the biggest issue to the gays who are not satisfied with having all the rights of marriage but having to call it a civil union.

The problem is that a civil union does NOT provide all the rights of marriage. The fact is, a gay couple (or any couple) could call themselves whatever they want. My fiance and I could refer to each other as husband and wife and no one could stop us. We wouldn't reap the legal benefits of marriage, but we can call ourselves whatever we damn well please. The primary problem, largely stemming from DOMA, is that gays are denied certain privileges that are currently allowed only to married couples at the federal level. Health insurance, inheritance, taxes... all are privileges explicitly reserved for married couples, thus denying them to gays and lesbians.

So it a Civil Union was modified to include all of the legal rights of marriage, t hen the gays would be happy? Get all of the benefits, but not called "marriage". Marriage is preserved as a union between a man and a woman, and a civil union is the joining of two other individuals (might as well include related same sex family member too in there). Each would afford the same rights under the law, but have a differing name. Does that solve the problem?

Well, I'm not gay, so I won't presume to speak for what "the gays" want, though it should be noted that they are not a monolithic group and therefore there would likely be a variety of responses to the issue. I only seek to comment on what I believe is right and, while your plan would be a step in the right direction, I would still take issue with it. For me, the issue is not only about granting them the privileges (they are not truly rights) of marriage, but of recognizing the equality of all loving relationships. Making a distinction without a difference is still to say that there is something "other" about a same-sex relationship. There isn't.

Ultimately, if the government IS going to be involved in relationships (and there is good reason for them to be involved in some ways but not nearly as many as they already are), they would do best to offer a pact that is available to all couples (I'd even extend the offering to polygamous relationships, but that is another conversation for another day). Call it marriage. Call it a civil union. Call it super-fun-happy-agreement. I don't care. If churches or other non-governmental institutions want to sanctify relationships in their own way with their own language, so be it. But let's not pretend that the word "marriage" is owned by any one group.

Just to note, your plan would be akin to saying, "Well, I think voting should just be for white people. We'll let blacks and Asians and all the rest participate in the political process, but we are going to call it something different. They'll participate the same way but... we won't let them vote." Not only is it insulting to the otherized party, but it is needlessly difficult to placate the irrational demands of a selfish group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm currently living in MN where the state senate jusst approved adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The House will surely approve as well, then it will go on the ballot in Nov 2008. Apparently this will help protect and benefit me in some way. I'm a heterosexual mid thirties married Christian female with three children. What serious threat to me or my family is being avoided by ensuring gays cannot marry? What benefits will my family and me receive? If this is such a serious issue that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I'd like to understand why, exactly.

My tiny little brain just can't process how denying rights to others will improve my marriage, strengthen my family, or make the world safer for my children.

No you are not.

Why do you dispute that? Need some details? I was born in 1974, baptized in small Midwestern Lutheran church. I have three red Revised Standard Version Bibles (given to me in 1982 and 1983 by our church) but prefer the language of the King James version, and am not a fan of the newest version that makes it even more "plain language" but I support the idea of making the Bible more accessible to all people. I asked my mom to save me a copy of the old green LBW when they were recently replaced by a new worship book, because I like the traditional music and service from my childhood. I was married in a Lutheran church in April 2005 - to a man. I gave birth to my first child in 2006, my second in 2008, and my third in 2010. All have been baptized. I just helped my oldest write a thank you card to his Sunday School teacher yesterday.

And I fully, completely, wholeheartedly support gay marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm currently living in MN where the state senate jusst approved adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The House will surely approve as well, then it will go on the ballot in Nov 2008. Apparently this will help protect and benefit me in some way. I'm a heterosexual mid thirties married Christian female with three children. What serious threat to me or my family is being avoided by ensuring gays cannot marry? What benefits will my family and me receive? If this is such a serious issue that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I'd like to understand why, exactly.

My tiny little brain just can't process how denying rights to others will improve my marriage, strengthen my family, or make the world safer for my children.

No you are not.

Why do you dispute that? Need some details? I was born in 1974, baptized in small Midwestern Lutheran church. I have three red Revised Standard Version Bibles (given to me in 1982 and 1983 by our church) but prefer the language of the King James version, and am not a fan of the newest version that makes it even more "plain language" but I support the idea of making the Bible more accessible to all people. I asked my mom to save me a copy of the old green LBW when they were recently replaced by a new worship book, because I like the traditional music and service from my childhood. I was married in a Lutheran church in April 2005 - to a man. I gave birth to my first child in 2006, my second in 2008, and my third in 2010. All have been baptized. I just helped my oldest write a thank you card to his Sunday School teacher yesterday.

And I fully, completely, wholeheartedly support gay marriage.

Sitting in a church does not make you a Christian, just like sitting in a garage will not make you a car.

Jesus said by their fruit you will recognize them. He also said not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Have whatever religious beliefs you want to have, but this is not a cafeteria or a buffet. Just because you enjoy reading the Bible, going to church, and saying hallelujah it does not mean you have a relationship with Jesus and you have surrendered your life to Him. And if you have not, then you really shouldn't call yourself a Christian. It's common, but it bothers me because it confuses people. Find another name for your religion, or put some kind of qualifier in front of it. Or better yet, leave religion out of it and just state you believe what you believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm currently living in MN where the state senate jusst approved adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The House will surely approve as well, then it will go on the ballot in Nov 2008. Apparently this will help protect and benefit me in some way. I'm a heterosexual mid thirties married Christian female with three children. What serious threat to me or my family is being avoided by ensuring gays cannot marry? What benefits will my family and me receive? If this is such a serious issue that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I'd like to understand why, exactly.

My tiny little brain just can't process how denying rights to others will improve my marriage, strengthen my family, or make the world safer for my children.

No you are not.

Why do you dispute that? Need some details? I was born in 1974, baptized in small Midwestern Lutheran church. I have three red Revised Standard Version Bibles (given to me in 1982 and 1983 by our church) but prefer the language of the King James version, and am not a fan of the newest version that makes it even more "plain language" but I support the idea of making the Bible more accessible to all people. I asked my mom to save me a copy of the old green LBW when they were recently replaced by a new worship book, because I like the traditional music and service from my childhood. I was married in a Lutheran church in April 2005 - to a man. I gave birth to my first child in 2006, my second in 2008, and my third in 2010. All have been baptized. I just helped my oldest write a thank you card to his Sunday School teacher yesterday.

And I fully, completely, wholeheartedly support gay marriage.

Sitting in a church does not make you a Christian, just like sitting in a garage will not make you a car.

Jesus said by their fruit you will recognize them. He also said not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Have whatever religious beliefs you want to have, but this is not a cafeteria or a buffet. Just because you enjoy reading the Bible, going to church, and saying hallelujah it does not mean you have a relationship with Jesus and you have surrendered your life to Him. And if you have not, then you really shouldn't call yourself a Christian. It's common, but it bothers me because it confuses people. Find another name for your religion, or put some kind of qualifier in front of it. Or better yet, leave religion out of it and just state you believe what you believe.

Great. Show me a quote from Jesus on marriage.

And speaking of cafeteria Christianity, does your church permit divorce or annulment? If so you are a cafeteria Christian. Oh but that doesn't count because .... Why? Those are Jesus' words on marriage.

Hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pls correct me if I'm wrong but one of the big issues is if gay marriage is made legal, a church can be forced to perform the ceremony.

The DC "marriage equality law says: to ensure that no priest, minister, imam, or rabbi of any religious denomination and no official of any non-profit religious organization authorized to solemnize marriages shall be required to celebrate any marriage if doing so violates his or her right to the free exercise of religion". In fact, the official name of the law, "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND CIVIL MARRIAGE EQUALITY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2009", puts religious freedom first, and specifies that it is about civil marriage equality.

This may be the case in DC but not elsewhere. I believe this is one of the reasons why the bill died in MD.