Same Sex Marriage Bans

[Cindy Hamlin]

Before you comment on this thread put aside all of your religious beliefs and biases and just think about the other person first, please.

I am a heterosexual person, but find it offensive that there are laws that dictate who you can and cannot make a lifetime commitment to. I have spent a lot of time talking to my friend Allen about his life, loves, etc. In talking to him I came to realize that it isn't abnormal, that our perception of it is abnormal.

I feel like life is too short not to be committed to whomever you find that you love. I think it is shameful to legislate love. I voted for "W" and am embarrassed that he has taken his stance against gay marriage.

I feel it is nobody's business what goes on between 2 consenting adults and if they love one another than more power to them. Just because it isn't considered normal by a sector of the population who are we to judge and say they aren't correct.

Again, make sure that you temper your responses.

[jediron]

PLezzzzzzzzzzzzzz! This is not worth commenting on!

[Jackie L]

Sure...same sex marriages should be legal if the couple chooses to. Who are we to dictate who should be with whom.

[Joann Raytar]

Cindy Hamlin said:
Before you comment on this thread put aside all of your religious beliefs and biases and just think about the other person first, please.

Okay, putting religious beliefs and how I feel personally aside, I would have to say same sex marriages have a legal value. Of course, so do heterosexual common law marriages but most states don't honor common law so it's a tough call. I think if states are going to adopt same sex marriages then they should allow common law as well.

In terms of civil relationships, we are talking about shared finances and major life decisions such as living wills and inheiritance. If someone has shared a lifetime with another person and it is understood that they were partners, then one shouldn't be cast aside.

[JRS]

The difficulty in common law marriages, if I recall, has been in the underlying proof that it existed. Whereas, with a "document" from the state stating a relationship, the proof is self-evident (supposedly).
Which is why same sex partners have fought for this so long. Difficulty with inheritence, insurance, etc. with relationships that theoretically don't exist. So I say let them have it.


As with Cindy H, I'm a happily (until asked to do a chore) married hetrosexual - been married over 37 years now.

[jofelk]

I think the argument is whether same sex marriages should be viewed as being equal, in relationship with "opposite" sex marriges, under our laws.

NO!

[chm2023]

Of course they should be allowed, what's the down side? I feel sorry for homosexual people--they are villified as promiscuous on one hand, but on the other, denied the ability to enter into a recognized union.

[BobV]

as you stated...LIFETIME COMMITMENT. As we have seen, there have already been gay or lesbian marriages, with divorces in 6 months. So where's the commitment? One could say the same about heterosexuals, but still, under the law, it's a man and a woman.

Bob V.

[shanbaum]

BobV said:
as you stated...LIFETIME COMMITMENT. As we have seen, there have already been gay or lesbian marriages, with divorces in 6 months. So where's the commitment? One could say the same about heterosexuals, but still, under the law, it's a man and a woman.

Bob V.

So, Bob, you're advocating a constitutional ban on divorce as well as on gay marriage?

[shanbaum]

jofelk said:
I think the argument is whether same sex marriages should be viewed as being equal, in relationship with "opposite" sex marriges, under our laws.

NO!

So they'd be OK if they were differentiated? How?

[BobV]

No, I am not advocating a constitutional ban on divorce. It's just that the gay community has shown time and again that they are not up to stable relationships.

[shanbaum]

BobV said:
No, I am not advocating a constitutional ban on divorce. It's just that the gay community has shown time and again that they are not up to stable relationships.

So, if it were the case that gay couples' relationships were shown to last about as long as those of straight couples, you'd be OK with gay marriage?

[BobV]

With that kind of reasoning, sure.

I guess what is my real issue on this subject is the various state laws allowing "life partners" the same benefits as married couples.

I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I am not a religious person so God and church don't enter into the conversation. You want the benefits, get married, hetero or gay. Don't just pretend to set up shop and then close the business to retain benefits.

[Judy Canty]

There are an awful lot of generalizations floating around this very emotional issue. Who's got real data? If 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce, why not ban marriage period? If something only worked half of the time, I wouldn't buy it, would you?

[Texas Ranger]

Our country and it's laws were based on religious principles, with the seperation of church and state, to insure that one groups religious principles wouldn't be lorded over anothers. now, marraige IS a religious relationship, so the view that you can honor a "same-sex amrriage" in a legal way, has nothing to do with "marriage", and I suppose that anything and everything would be Okay if we just overlooked our religious beliefs, and it is certainly easier if we have none, right? and if you do have religious beliefs, it's pretty "etched in stone" that same-sex relationships are not Okay, married or unmarried, so what's the difference. It seems to me that if you work for a company and you want to pay for "dependent benefits", you should be able to designate anyone you like, as long as you're paying the premium. I do believe that I know many people in a same-sex, long term relationship, and they are quite happy, and I have no ill feelings toward them, but from a religious viewpoint, that different...

[shanbaum]

That "50% of marriages end in divorce" is misleading. While the number of divorces in a given year may be about half the number of marriages, some (many?) divorces occur between persons who have been divorced before.

Or to look at it another way, because divorced persons can contribute repeatedly to the divorce rate, and married persons (who remain married) contribute only once to the marriage rate, the ratio of marriages to divorces really isn't a valid indicator of the success rate of marriages.

It might be more meaningful to report the percentage of the population that has been married n (0, 1, 2, 3...) times.

[Judy Canty]

Well put, Al.

The 50% stats are posted by the CDC based on census data.

[shanbaum]

Judy Canty said:

The 50% stats are posted by the CDC based on census data.

Yeah, and what they say is that the number of divorces is about half the number of marriages...

[EyeManFla]

Hey, I'm all for it. Gays and Lesbians should have the right to screw up their lives and be as miserable as the rest of us:hammer:

[varmint]

I voted no on this one, but then I can't really put aside my religious beliefs because I was taught to believe marrage is a holy principal.

[Joann Raytar]

Texas Ranger said:
... now, marraige IS a religious relationship, so the view that you can honor a "same-sex amrriage" in a legal way, has nothing to do with "marriage .... It seems to me that if you work for a company and you want to pay for "dependent benefits", you should be able to designate anyone you like, as long as you're paying the premium.

But even a church wedding involves a marriage license which still makes marriage a contract under civil law.

I do agree with you about the insurance issue. As long as folks pay the premiums, why not?

I think the marriage issue involves more than insurance such as living wills and etc.

EyeManFla said:
Hey, I'm all for it. Gays and Lesbians should have the right to screw up their lives and be as miserable as the rest of us:hammer:

Apparently, you don't even have to be married to do that. ;) I've been with the same fellow for 14 years and I still don't understand him. I stopped trying to get it 5 years ago.

[igirl]

The problem I see with same sex marriages being recognized, is where does it stop? How about marriage to a child? Or multiple marriage partners?

[Texas Ranger]

igirl, there was a story on one of documentary 60 minute type things a while back about this morman guy in Utah, who had several wives, and two of them were a mother/daughter.....oh well, and then where would that all put folks like Michael Jackson?

[Cindy Hamlin]

BobV said:
as you stated...LIFETIME COMMITMENT. As we have seen, there have already been gay or lesbian marriages, with divorces in 6 months. So where's the commitment? One could say the same about heterosexuals, but still, under the law, it's a man and a woman.

Bob V.

Bob, I appreciate your opinion, but what about well the most recent heterosexual example I can think of Brittany Spears-55 hours if memory serve me right? Heterosexuals don't have a lock on monogamy.

The point is to change the law. The law says man and woman can it not say couple? And a couple can be open to the heart of those involved!

[Cindy Hamlin]

EyeManFla said:
Hey, I'm all for it. Gays and Lesbians should have the right to screw up their lives and be as miserable as the rest of us:hammer:

That's the spirit Eyeman!