Gay Marriage

[Andem]

Andem, what is proposed requires the creation of a new law. The necessary modification of the old law simply is not going to happen. I don't oppose the objective, but the current strategy will certainly fail. It will fail so disastrously as to setback the cause a decade. This isn't the way it's done. That's just my opinion.

I'm sorry. How is it not going to happen? It has happened. Gay Marriage is legal here and we have made modifications to our laws. I have several friends who are gay and married, so I don't know if you're referring to the Canada, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta.... or the United States somewhere.

What's done is done. And it's done here. Now we have to wait for several provinces to join the club if the federal government doesn't make the necessary rules nationwide (which will probably happen soon).

 

[American Voice]

I am talking about down here in the States. I don't know Canadian law.

 

[0bsplz]

A lot of bla di blah here about micromanaging the lives of others. Hows about we choose our battles more rationally, no offense intended; there are plenty archaic terms in law, eventually they have to be amended. Social change generally happens first... or I could just be talking thru my hat.

 

[Diamond Sun]

Excellent point. Social change does happen first and then it's up to the people to make the governement that at least some of us voted for change the laws to match the changing social issues.

 

[American Voice]

Yes. Thank you, DS.

 

[Vincent_2002]

Why do we need to create some kind of new law and not just change the current one to accomidate everybody? That is just more discrimination against others. They are not white heterosexual people, so there should not be some kind of change to the system?? Im not gay man, but the whole point is to give people equal say and cut discrimination from our socieity.
Thumbs down to a new law.

 

[Numure]

Already done here, Vincent.

 

[American Voice]

The following letter to the editor appeared in this morning's paper.


Loving, happy partners make nation stronger
Friday, July 23, 2004

I am disgusted by President Bush’s tireless need to "defend the sanctity of marriage." If he is so worried about the breakdown of the family, why not outlaw divorce? At least make it difficult to get a divorce. And why not make adultery a criminal offense? As a child of divorced parents, I believe that would have gone a long way to keep my parents together. Two people in a loving, committed relationship only helps society, not break it down.

JOHN KOST Upper Arlington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2004, The Columbus Dispatch

 

[LuShes]

Oyie as I said in a earlier post....just give them a peice of paper and say a few words and let them feel complete. Whats so hard about a peice of dang paper, lol.

No matter what sort of decision or opinion you have in the world today, you will NEVER make anyone happy.

 

[Numure]

Oyie as I said in a earlier post....just give them a peice of paper and say a few words and let them feel complete. Whats so hard about a peice of dang paper, lol.

No matter what sort of decision or opinion you have in the world today, you will NEVER make anyone happy.

Agreed. But when it comes to human rights, no one should be more priveledged then the next.

 

[researchok]

You know, I dont really have a problem with gay marriage-- but Im not sure its a matter of priviledge, per se.

I think 'marriage' should be a universal priviledge-- but where do you draw the line?

In other words, is polygamy OK? Relationships with minors, etc, etc, ?

At some point, dont you HAVE to draw lines?

 

[LuShes]

Numure: No they will not have more privledges then us. They just actually now have equal rights as us.

researchok: I agree, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. But this is between two loving adults.
No I will never support the marriage of minors, or animals..etc..etc...

 

[researchok]

I understand what youre saying-- but advocates of 'equal rights' can make a powerful argument.

Again, who determines the lines-- and how?

 

[Numure]

You know, I dont really have a problem with gay marriage-- but Im not sure its a matter of priviledge, per se.

I think 'marriage' should be a universal priviledge-- but where do you draw the line?

In other words, is polygamy OK? Relationships with minors, etc, etc, ?

At some point, dont you HAVE to draw lines?

You could argue that one is an adult when his/her body is fully developped. That is where the line is drawn. Age of consent, last I checked, is 16 in Québec. We are still talking here, about two human beings. It should remain at that. A loving relationship between two human beings. Not related (close family ties). Why? Because, brothers and sisters that would conceive a child, has a HUGE percentage to have birth defects.

 

[LuShes]

Humans...there is no pleasing us, you can argue about ANYTHING till you are blue in the face and gasping for air, and the other side says "So?" and won't budge...

I think everyone has a right to say what lines should be here and there. And thats why we are "supposed" to have faith in our government (which not many people do) So they can judge for us where the line should be drawn, and "try" to make their citizens happy and more productive in the choices they make.

 

[researchok]

Numure, who says marriage must include a sexual componant?

See where Im going with this?

 

[Andem]

I really can't believe we're comparing incest with homosexuality. In any direction, that type of 'marriage' would conflict with incest laws and as Numure stated, contributes to serious birth defects.

Research, I appreciate your view and what you're getting at. You must realise, sex is part of marriage. In my opinion, it's a vital part of a healthy relationship.

There's no issues with two men or two woman having sex together. Why shouldn't they have the option of sealing their love with marriage?

Who determines this line? Well, people do. You have to fight for rights, and it's always been that way. Right now we're fighting for equal rights for gays, yesterday it was equal rights for blacks, the day before it was equal rights for another minority. We live in a world that's still evolving. LuShes has put it right out there with "we're just turning on a rock".

 

[researchok]

I think we agree on the 'marriage' issue re gays-- no problem whatsoever. My question remains-- where do we stop-- who determines what ISNT equal rights, etc?

Now, is marriage necessarily sexual? By who's measure?

And that leaves us with the questions I raised earlier, re parent child, siblings, etc. Have you read some of my earlier posts?

The implications have yet to be undestood.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Whoever mentioned polygamy....Why the heck not? If everybody in the relationship is aware and happy with the arrangement, what business it is of ours? The only limit I'd put on it would be that spousal benefits should limited to one person/one spouse.

Eighteen is the age of majority...when you are considered and adult and allowed to vote. If consenting adults want to marry other adults, no matter whether they plan to have sex, no matter how many of them there are, let them. It really is none of our business.

 

[American Voice]

I think an obvious question here is: if a homosexual couple want to live together in "monogamous" union, what do they need with state certification of that fact? On the one hand, they argue that the state should stay out of their bedrooms, and on the other hand, they demand that the state should certify as legitimate what goes on there. It seems like a paradox to me.