First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply My problem with gay marriage (as explained to me)
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
So here's the thing, I've never been against gay marriage. As a matter of fact, I've never really thought about it. As a straight atheist, nothing could be less relatable to me than wanting to marry someone of my own sex through a church.

I've always said "Whatever, let people do whatever they want."

It was recently explained to me that this is my problem with gay marriage.

I live in a state where same-sex marriage is not recognized. I can hardly recognize any marriage, I was a groomsman at a straight Catholic wedding and the whole time I thought "Why not just sign a civil union paper, legally change a last name if you want, call it good?"

But if you share some belief and you want to tell everybody this is how it is, you should be legally protected. I'm not arguing with the pastors on that.

So my question is why should we actively support a cause that we agree with but don't care about personally? Is it really up to everybody to get this fixed as soon as possible or can we trust it will happen over time?

(to be clear, I am now an ASAP guy on the topic of gay marriage)
1329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / NY
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/5/15
Being neutral is essentially siding with the oppressor in situations where human rights are involved. You may think your apathy causes no harm (and it's reasonable for you to think so, I guess) but staying silent when there are still others being denied the right to be who they are is actually benefiting the ones who are trying to oppress LGBTA individuals (and other minorities).
4210 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
Churches have a individual right to choose if they want or not here, i think thats about as good as it should get, religion and the state should never mix, forcing it is really not the right way. Let it happen over time.
13016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15
@MontyDono
So what? You can get married in a courtroom. It doesn't have to be in a church
4210 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

parkerscannell wrote:

@MontyDono
So what? You can get married in a courtroom. It doesn't have to be in a church


Assuming everyone has the same laws ^ I said in my country, I've never even heard of a courtroom marriage before
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/9/15
The question is two fold here, so I'll answer both parts in turn.

The first part being about "why not just sign your civil union paper, legally change a last name if you want, and call it good." Well, the fact is, if it weren't for United States homophobic history, that would be good for the LGBTQ(and other letters I can't be arsed to remember) community. However, marriage became something of a political symbol; by denying LGBTQ people that right (which was done with DOMA after Hawaii almost had same-sex marriage), it was no longer an issue of if "LGBTQ people can have spousal rights" but an issue of if society would recognize LGBTQ as equals among a very heteronormative society. And not just de jure equality; but de facto equity.

Which in turn explains why people should actively support a cause that may not affect your own personal relationship. As I said, it became something of a political symbol. Even if this issue doesn't affect you personally, by supporting it you communicate that using the law to communicate disapproval of a particular demographic is wrong. It's about equity in the abstract rather than the concrete issue of same-sex marriage. The fact is, the gay rights movement is one of many movements that happened around the 60s that were about equity regarding race and feminism. The importance being a sense of collaborative movements that corroborate a political ideology of equity is something that should be valued.

Now, at this point, will same-sex marriage work itself out? Probably, but only because so much progress has been made since 1969 (and even before through Mattachine Society, for example). The more concrete reason why same-sex marriage is being legalized left and right is because of the recent Perry and Windsor case, particular Windsor. Windsor provided SCOTUS-level disapprovement of same-sex marriage, albeit, on the issue of spousal routes. Perry, while not setting any legal precedent (as SCOTUS ultimately dismissed it because it didn't hurt anyway, or "standing" issue); it nevertheless inspired many other plaintiffs in other states to initiate a court battle to approve same-sex marriage in the federal and appellate courts on a state-by-state basis. IIRC, four of these cases are collectively going to SCOTUS.

But would same-sex marriage have worked itself without allies not immediately affected by the LGBTQ community? I doubt it. Going back to the Perry case, I'd imagine that would not have been as headline news if it weren't for the two lawyers involved (i.e. the lawyers involved in the Bush v Gore debate to determine who became president because of Florida shenanigans); granted, you could argue that was for their pocket-book. Someone like Jon Stewart, who had not supported LGBT communities (albeit, in the form of parody), there may have not been nearly as much exposure and political exploration on the issue. The examples could continue ad nausem, but I think you get the point.

Anyway, I realize that was a long post to what was probably a small question.
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

morechunch wrote:

So here's the thing, I've never been against gay marriage. As a matter of fact, I've never really thought about it. As a straight atheist, nothing could be less relatable to me than wanting to marry someone of my own sex through a church.

I've always said "Whatever, let people do whatever they want."

It was recently explained to me that this is my problem with gay marriage.

I live in a state where same-sex marriage is not recognized. I can hardly recognize any marriage, I was a groomsman at a straight Catholic wedding and the whole time I thought "Why not just sign a civil union paper, legally change a last name if you want, call it good?"

But if you share some belief and you want to tell everybody this is how it is, you should be legally protected. I'm not arguing with the pastors on that.

So my question is why should we actively support a cause that we agree with but don't care about personally? Is it really up to everybody to get this fixed as soon as possible or can we trust it will happen over time?

(to be clear, I am now an ASAP guy on the topic of gay marriage)


That's an interesting question to ask. I think it's fair to to ask "what would you have me do?" What is enough?

6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

parkerscannell wrote:

@MontyDono
So what? You can get married in a courtroom. It doesn't have to be in a church


But for a lot of people it has to be in a church.

Who should concede their belief? Should we call gay faith-based union something besides marriage, should we call straight faith-based union something besides marriage? It's a qualification issue in my mind.

I'm totally lost as to why marriage needs to be a word that means man-woman-permanent-union. But not everybody is, and if I ask around, most people think the word marriage just means permanent-union.

Also, you can't get "married" in a courtroom in Nebraska if you and your partner are the same sex.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

Zoraprime wrote:

The question is two fold here, so I'll answer both parts in turn.

The first part being about "why not just sign your civil union paper, legally change a last name if you want, and call it good." Well, the fact is, if it weren't for United States homophobic history, that would be good for the LGBTQ(and other letters I can't be arsed to remember) community. However, marriage became something of a political symbol; by denying LGBTQ people that right (which was done with DOMA after Hawaii almost had same-sex marriage), it was no longer an issue of if "LGBTQ people can have spousal rights" but an issue of if society would recognize LGBTQ as equals among a very heteronormative society. And not just de jure equality; but de facto equity.

Which in turn explains why people should actively support a cause that may not affect your own personal relationship. As I said, it became something of a political symbol. Even if this issue doesn't affect you personally, by supporting it you communicate that using the law to communicate disapproval of a particular demographic is wrong. It's about equity in the abstract rather than the concrete issue of same-sex marriage. The fact is, the gay rights movement is one of many movements that happened around the 60s that were about equity regarding race and feminism. The importance being a sense of collaborative movements that corroborate a political ideology of equity is something that should be valued.

Now, at this point, will same-sex marriage work itself out? Probably, but only because so much progress has been made since 1969 (and even before through Mattachine Society, for example). The more concrete reason why same-sex marriage is being legalized left and right is because of the recent Perry and Windsor case, particular Windsor. Windsor provided SCOTUS-level disapprovement of same-sex marriage, albeit, on the issue of spousal routes. Perry, while not setting any legal precedent (as SCOTUS ultimately dismissed it because it didn't hurt anyway, or "standing" issue); it nevertheless inspired many other plaintiffs in other states to initiate a court battle to approve same-sex marriage in the federal and appellate courts on a state-by-state basis. IIRC, four of these cases are collectively going to SCOTUS.

But would same-sex marriage have worked itself without allies not immediately affected by the LGBTQ community? I doubt it. Going back to the Perry case, I'd imagine that would not have been as headline news if it weren't for the two lawyers involved (i.e. the lawyers involved in the Bush v Gore debate to determine who became president because of Florida shenanigans); granted, you could argue that was for their pocket-book. Someone like Jon Stewart, who had not supported LGBT communities (albeit, in the form of parody), there may have not been nearly as much exposure and political exploration on the issue. The examples could continue ad nausem, but I think you get the point.

Anyway, I realize that was a long post to what was probably a small question.


thumbsuppoints
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

morechunch wrote:


parkerscannell wrote:

@MontyDono
So what? You can get married in a courtroom. It doesn't have to be in a church


But for a lot of people it has to be in a church.

Who should concede their belief? Should we call gay faith-based union something besides marriage, should we call straight faith-based union something besides marriage? It's a qualification issue in my mind.

I'm totally lost as to why marriage needs to be a word that means man-woman-permanent-union. But not everybody is, and if I ask around, most people think the word marriage just means permanent-union.

Also, you can't get married in a courtroom in Nebraska if you and your partner are the same sex.


The only worry I would have changing the language from something like marriage to civil unions is that the laws change from locality to locality about stuff like this. Laws that deal with who's got property rights and other things of that sort that married couples have over shared assets. If a civil union exists, but there's no change to the accompanying property laws everywhere to change marriage to civil union, does that really help anything?

If our previous posters with more in depth legal knowledge can clarify, that would help too.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

crazykl45 wrote:


morechunch wrote:


parkerscannell wrote:

@MontyDono
So what? You can get married in a courtroom. It doesn't have to be in a church


But for a lot of people it has to be in a church.

Who should concede their belief? Should we call gay faith-based union something besides marriage, should we call straight faith-based union something besides marriage? It's a qualification issue in my mind.

I'm totally lost as to why marriage needs to be a word that means man-woman-permanent-union. But not everybody is, and if I ask around, most people think the word marriage just means permanent-union.

Also, you can't get married in a courtroom in Nebraska if you and your partner are the same sex.


The only worry I would have changing the language from something like marriage to civil unions is that the laws change from locality to locality about stuff like this. Laws that deal with who's got property rights and other things of that sort that married couples have over shared assets. If a civil union exists, but there's no change to the accompanying property laws everywhere to change marriage to civil union, does that really help anything?


No it does not.

Get a pre-nup, rich people.
36990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Bellingham WA, USA
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 3/22/15
Well I was pro gay marriage and voted it in for my state, but now I'm passively against it. The rhetoric that the activists employ really annoys me- like to the point where I want nothing more to do with the movement at all. The gay mafia has been a term thrown around for the last few years, but it's kind of a real thing.

People who disagree with gay marriage because they value the cultural or religious signifcance the institution of marriage has had on families for thousands of years get screamed down as bigots and homophobes, even if they have no other issues with gay people and even support civil unions. I don't like that sort of stuff, and it's no way to change people's minds. Instead the idealogues on both sides are just going to become more entrenched and more crazy.

I'm a libertarian, all you have to do to convince me of something is to calmly talk about gay marriage from the stance of your individual civil liberties. But when people who oppose the cause in even the most passive or minor ways end up losing their jobs and being labeled as enemies of the state, I will quietly renounce my support and proceed to back away slowly.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

Balzack wrote:

Well I was pro gay marriage and voted it in for my state, but now I'm passively against it. The rhetoric that the activists employ really annoys me- like to the point where I want nothing more to do with the movement at all. The gay mafia has been a term thrown around for the last few years, but it's kind of a real thing.

People who disagree with gay marriage because they value the cultural or religious signifcance the institution of marriage has had on families for thousands of years get screamed down as bigots and homophobes, even if they have no other issues with gay people and even support civil unions. I don't like that sort of stuff, and it's no way to change people's minds. Instead the idealogues on both sides are just going to become more entrenched and more crazy.

I'm a libertarian, all you have to do to convince me of something is to calmly talk about gay marriage from the stance of your individual civil liberties. But when people who oppose the cause in even the most passive or minor ways end up losing their jobs and being labeled as enemies of the state, I will quietly renounce my support and proceed to back away slowly.


Well then maybe you can connect with the fact that "marriage" started in almost all societies as a woman, as property, being "married" off to a man for a dowry, which nobody cares about now.

This at face value should say a woman is valued higher than a man, you gotta put money into a woman if she's worth it.

As a libertarian, iInstead of backing away, shouldn't you blitzkrieg the mawfukka?

(Clarification: Registered as independent in 2005, you can check my records.)
36990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Bellingham WA, USA
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

morechunch wrote:

Well then maybe you can connect with the fact that marriage started in almost all societies as a woman, as property, being "married" off to a man for a dowry, which nobody cares about now.

This at face value should say a woman is valued higher than a man, you gotta put money into a woman if she's worth it.


We need to bring back dowries! That is probably the incentive I need to find a wife....getting paid off by her parents to take her off their hands.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

Balzack wrote:


morechunch wrote:

Well then maybe you can connect with the fact that marriage started in almost all societies as a woman, as property, being "married" off to a man for a dowry, which nobody cares about now.

This at face value should say a woman is valued higher than a man, you gotta put money into a woman if she's worth it.


We need to bring back dowries! That is probably the incentive I need to find a wife....getting paid off by her parents to take her off their hands.


Hahaha, yes!

I have my own price that I am unwilling to negotiate. 50,000 bucks sent to my brother and his wife and I'm yours, no questions.

This is deviating, is marriage worth a civil union, is a civil union worth marriage?

Why should their be a difference, why should we care about the diffrence?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.