Gay Marriage
 

Should gay marriages be legal?

Pretty valid, socially relevant, straight forward poll. I'm curious to see what the mix is here at FOFC on the topic.

If you can't contribute to the conversation without flying off the handle and subsequently blaming the OP for your actions, please refrain from posting. k thx

P.S. - Go Niners!

How dare you post something so controversial. :D

Based on the results of this past election, I really feel like this issue has finally made its way and it's only a matter of time now (could still be a while in some places) until this question is not all that much more controversial than asking whether people of different races should be allowed to marry.

Jesus wants Ray Lewis to win the Super Bowl.

Why do I care if two adults enter into a legal contract?

It's just a matter of time before it's legal in all the states. Individual states are legalizing it left and right. Old people will die off and it's not an issue with younger people today.

I put down yes, given the options here. But I have stated in the past my belief that there should be a difference between religious and legal marriage, which is why I support the creation of civil unions.

Religious marriages are recognized before God and deity or whatsoever religion wishes to recognize them, per the dictums of their faith.

Legal marriages are recognized before Obama and the rest of the beauracratic plebes in the various governments in this country.

what do you care?

I see it as more like this. There are basic marriages that carry all legal rights, and then you can add on "as recognized by the _____ church" bonus designation if you like.

Why should gays get to miss out? They should have to put up with the same crap the rest of us do.

:D

I loved the Key and Peele take on it.

But who decides what marriages God recognizes? Honestly there are 100 other things God condemns that no one gives a shit about when it comes to marriage. Why should those that "run" the church be allowed to pick and choose the current flavor of the weak? (and yes I wrote that the way I intended to, because I don't believe those that "run" the church should be judging others based on their personal beliefs.)

I feel that if you made the poll private there would be a lot more No votes...

Good point DG.

Why should I care what 2 people who love each other do wit htheir lives? I have no more right to tell them how they can live their lives then they do to tell me.

I have a gay cousin and her and her partner are 2 of the most well adjusted people I know. They have 2 great kids and are just as much a loving family as any other I know.

This.

Marriage is something that was around long before the USA and it will be around long after. Our government should not be in the business of sanctioning "marriage" or not sanctioning it. As far as legal agreements between persons who get married, that's all good. But to tell people they have less or no rights based on who they want to marry? No. They should be out of that business. It makes as much sense to me as denying a driver's license to someone because they are gay.

I highly doubt we'll ever see a politician take a stand that gets the government out of the marriage game. Who wants to be painted as being "against marriage," even if they are only taking a common sense approach.

We all know that any politician who uses common sense will have some lunatic on the other side who gets everybody's panties in a bunch.

Things have changed a lot. When Reagan was elected less than half the country thought interracial marriages should be legal.

Personally, I don't. I am not very religious. But I recognize that there are many that very much are, and they believe marriage is a religious institution.

I think it makes sense to respect their beluiefs while also creating a non-religious form of marriage that allows for gay rights equality.

Every faith is entitled to their own beliefs. Obviously, their beliefs only apply to themselves. It shouldn't affect anyone else.

Unless you're saying you want the government to tell people what to believe?

I agree with the general thought that the only government intervention into marriage should be the legal ramifications of it. Gays should enjoy the same benefits through legal marriage as everyone else, and all that follows it (family rights; if it comes to it, rights through divorce; etc.).

What religion calls it is really no one's business. Some can comdemn, others can support, but the only thing that would matter, religiously, is the faith the couple themselves choose to recognize it (and they don't even need that to be married).

This...they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us!

But truthfully, I don't understand the "moral" reasons trotted out over and over for why it "ruins" marriage for the rest of us. There are plenty of married couples doing things right now you probably don't agree with, and it's having zero impact on your marriage.

I'm a practicing Catholic, but think "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you", the overridding theme of what the church is supposed to stand for, supercedes any individual, one line item someone selects.

Yes, gays should be allowed to legally marry each other. And the homosexual marriages which are performed at my church (though I only know of one off hand) should be able to be recognized under the law just as the heterosexual marriages performed there.

Agreed. My not making the poll private was just so I could get a better gauge on who felt whatever way and was actually willing to say so publicly.

I find it frankly breath taking that religious people are against gay marriages because they're not 'traditional' ...

A traditional marriage at the time of the bible was as much a financial transaction as anything else, often involving the marriage of incredibly young girls to much older men - such marriages today are looked down upon in most places as being out dated and definitely not something to 'strive towards'.

Times have changed and so has our interpretation of what is moral and right - hence the modern interpretation of marriage within most western societies ... the approval of Gay marriage is just an extension of those changes imho.

You see, this is where I think we need to be mroe clear. The government shouldn't have anything to do with recognizing your church's marriages, either hetero or homo. That's between the couple, your congregation, your fatih leaders and God.

The government ideally won't be recognizing anything done in a church, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the married couple. They will only "recognize" two people submitting paperwork for a legal contract under the codes for marriage. How far we go with that--a signed contract, a separate, simple civil service before a judge, whatever--is up to the government.

you should followup with a private poll.

Yeah and then we can all take guesses and who lies in public!

Let the gays marry legally, but don't force it down any churches throat.

does anyone else find calling gay people "the gays" or "gays" a little odd? We typically don't say "the blacks" or "the mexicans." Seems very 1950's pre tolerance to me.

I'm pretty sure it already works like this. If you get married in a religious ceremony without first getting a marriage license, that marriage isn't recognized by the state. That isn't absolute, but unless you've gone the common law route it is difficult. Once you get a marriage license, the state doesn't care if you have a religious ceremony or not.

I thought about how I would word this beforehand. I ultimately decided "gays" was acceptable when thinking about how most people refer to others, anyway.

Example: I'm Jewish, and I generally call other people of Jewish faith/ethnicity "Jews." I think the same applies to Christians, Hindus, Whites, African-Americans, etc. The term "gays" struck me as being only insensitive if you're the type of person that's constantly on the lookout for something to be offended by.

Would it make you feel better if I removed "the"?

Seems pretty damned stupid to complain about putting "the" in front of something. If I said "the queers" or "the fags", I could see the reaction.

edit: I mis read you.. "the" had nothing to do with it. But my point still stands in terms of calling gay people gay. Isn't that what they call themselves? My Mexican employees are Mexican, and the Nicaraguans are Nicaraguan. They are Mexicans and Nicaraguans.

I don't get the outrage.

Seems like this needs to be a parody thread of the 'Saying "We" when talking about sports teams' thread

no outrage, just seems a little non PC, that is all. Not offended in the least nor looking for something to be offended by.

True. I'm not advocating that we do something drastically different. Just further codify the separation of church and state in this process, and open it up to both hetero and homosexual marriages.

I actually can't stand the term African-American. It's way over the top PC, IMO, and should only be used in formal language. Blacks are blacks, whites are whites, etc. Mexicans is incorrectly used as a lump all, but I think saying "Latino" or "Hispanic" is acceptable.

Obviously, I am perfectly fine with using the terms gays and lesbians. Trying to say otherwise comes off as awkward, IMO.

I know this to be true in Virginia and Illinois. My brother and his wife had to go to the courthouse in VA to get their license even before the catholic church would marry them.

The same in illinois for my wife and I.

African-Americans is probably the worst of the bunch in my opinion when trying to apply it to someone skin color. I happen to actually know a couple 'African-Americans' and they are white as white can be. Born and raised in Africa, migrated to the US, are now US citizens and have 3 children. So yes, 'technically', they are African-American.

Yup. Silly question, especially in the 30 and under cohort.

FWIW, I wonder if this being a public poll biases the results some - a sort of Wilder-effect.

tick-tock

Average age on the no votes is pretty interesting.

Same is true though of using the term "black". There are a wide variety of skin tones in the world. Is someone of African ancestry to be called "black" even if their skin is not black? Is someone who identifies with a European ancestry "white" even if their skin is darker than someone who identifies as "black"? Do we call a Hispanic "black"?

My point is neither way of describing things works 100% of the time because these categories are fluid. But we need ways to describe things. African-American acknowledges that we're referring to someone's ancestry, not simply the color of their skin. I think a lot of people have found it an improvement to shift the focus in that way. The fact that there are still issues with it only shows that trying to describe "race" is an impossible thing.

I definitely feel a difference in tone when someone says "gays" versus for example, "people who are gay," or "Mexicans" versus "Mexican people. I think there's something linguistically about replacing a person's personhood with a category. Adding "the" puts things over the top. Saying "The gays" or "the blacks" or "the mexicans" seems to make an even stronger statement of otherness, or lumping them into some thing of which they all must be a part. Maybe it's just because it's the terms that prejudiced people typically use? Or is there something in the linguistics that changes the tone of it.

Very well said, for me it is a tone thing. It comes off to me as carrying some distain for that group when it is said that way.

Neither. Here's what i think.


We should get rid of marriage as a legal entity. Allow anyone who wants to, male-male, male-female, female-female, multiple partners, ect to enter into civic unions.


Let churches marry whoever they feel okay marrying.


Get the state out of marriage completely and let's move on to teh next issue.

Understandable. It's impossible to read tone on a message board. You could even take the word 'homosexual' and give it a negative tone. Think of a slow southern drawl "homa sekshul". "That guy over there.... he's one of those homosexuals"

Marriage = no.

Civil union/domestic partnership w/ all legal rights granted to married couples = yes.

To clarify my opinion, religious instutitions should not have definitions of "marriage" forced upon them. Religious institutions should have the right to deny recognizing or granting a marriage to individuals who do not follow their principles.

That being said, the government does not have the same right. The government should allow same-sex couples to enjoy the same tax benefits and other which heterosexual couples enjoy.

Yeah, I really wish someone would just split the knot by instituting only legal unions by the government, and leave the word marriage in the public market place. Leaves no one anything to complain about as far as I can see.