I can't believe no one else has brought this up yet, so...
 

What of the gay marriage thing going on in San Francisco?

By now you all have heard, I'm sure. If not, check the front page of any regional newspaper or google it.

I have been asked my opinion on this more than once. And since it seems hell has frozen over because Rush and I disagree on this point completely, I thought I'd post my opinions here for all to see and ridicule.

Simply put, I don't see a big problem here. The world will not end, the ability for me to wed Dagney hasn't changed a whit. MY rights are not being infringed. No one else's rights or freedoms are being infringed. It's not costing the taxpayers anything (I think the "marriage penalty" is a crock) and no one is being personally harmed. Yes, a few homophobes personal emotional security is being called into question, but they'll get over it.

This is a tempest in a teapot. Using the gays' own numbers, they are only about ten percent of the population. And of these, a large percentage are NOT interested in marriage. They are more known for having multiple partners and one-night stands or at best, serial monogamy. Therefore, the gay couples wanting to get married are a small percentage of the overall population. This number will not make any radical changes by themselves. The very fabric of our social tapestry (heard from a religious whacko) will not be torn asunder.

Aside, does anyone really use "asunder" anymore???

I say, let 'em go for it. The major arguments come from religious quarters anyway. If they have such a problem with it, let them refuse to recognize the marriages as valid. That should make them feel secure that none of "those types" are getting into their pond and polluting the "good and decent folk" with their unGodly ways. And for the State, they should not recognise the Church marriages as valid either. Fair is fair.

I have no personal objection to anyone getting married legally to another person not of their own kin and within species boundaries. (I put that in because Rush took things to an extreme and asked what if we next wanted to marry within the family or our pets?)

Simply put, live and let live. You can't have separation of Church and State one way, folks. Stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours.

Brian

The San Fran stuff probably didn't come up because the Massachusetts thing was discussed so much. But I say good for the mayor of San Francisco. The issue is now somewhat different. Some people may be willing to prevent people from being married, but not willing to let the state force anullments on people.

I say it's about time the queers have the pleasure of divorce.

Re: I can't believe no one else has brought this up yet, so...
 

Of course. I mean, not regularly... no more often than I use, say, prehensile.

Ahh, that's the problem.. the people making these arguments don't want separation of church & state at all! :cool:

Re: Re: I can't believe no one else has brought this up yet, so...
 

Ain't that the truth? Don't you guys know that every "immoral" act is an abomination to (insert your monotheistic, patriarchal deity here), and that his/her/its followers must do everything possible to prevent it and bring you/them/us to eternal salvation by being washed in the blood/urine/semen of (insert your prophet/saviour/saint here)?

I find it humorous that the holy side of all this is always going on about family stability, and now, all of the sudden, something that will clearly lead to greater stabilization of family arrangements is bad. If marriage is good for a man and woman, how can it be bad for a man and another man, or a woman and another woman?

It is never too late to become a Pagan, people...

Oddly enough, I read something about this today here. Read the whole article (it's interesting), but my favorite quotation is this:

I think Morford's not quite right. I think the bestiality thing is what they fall back on when pressed to give a reason that isn't based on religion or personal distaste. Same with incest, polygamy, and pedophilia. They are trying to get people to associate homosexuality with other things that have more universal disapproval.

And all this talk of bestiality, etc., just pisses me off when I see something like this. It's just so sad that these marriages will all be legally sundered when the legal process is over.

What SF is doing is great, IMO...civil disobedience at its finest.

I am always completely puzzled when people seem to feel that they simply can't mind their own fucking business. It isn't as though raging bands of now-married homosexuals are going to start copulating in people's Christian homes at random. Married gays are not more likely to sodomize people's children than are married straights.

I just seriously don't get it. Who the hell cares who fucks whom, as long as both parties are amenable? It just isn't anyone else's damn business, plain and simple.

Religion has nothing to do with rationality any more. Originally, religion was a way to bond people in small and large groups. Now it's just an anachronistic social tool. A deeply rooted anachronistic social tool.

Legalizing such social unions is not about religion. Its about forming a legal structure so that the partners can support each other. For example, a gay man was banned from the hospital room of his dying partner by a righteous nurse because he was not legally married. If one partner gets sick and cannot work, then the health insurance of his partner cannot be used. A man and wife cannot make deathbed and funeral arrangements for each other. Relationship of gay couples where one must make decisions for her lover can be legally overriden by any other meddling family member. In short, gay marriages in San Francisco and Massachusetts is about legal rights of sworn partners. Religion has no stake in these legal relationships and no business expressing an opinion.

I've never read the bible, but I passed the midterm in my Islam course, so I'm going to pretend I'm an authority on religion.

Parts of the Qur'an say things to the effect of "do good and prohibit evil". Other parts of the Qur'an list prohibited sexual acts. Fornication and homosexuality are up there, as I understand it (two minutes of checking the indexes of my Qur'an and textbook didn't turn up anything, but I'm pretty sure) and there are lengthy passages about who you can marry. It's easy to say "Islam says putting your wee-wee in some other guy's bum is bad", and not much harder to continue with "so I'm not going to let you". I gather the same goes for Christianity, what with how much noise some people are making. It seems like most of the trouble comes from nobody being willing to say "my religion forbids homosexuality" right out. What would happen, I wonder, if they did?


It's sort of funny to study a distinctly nonsecular religion, where the guidelines set forth in the Qur'an and the prophet's sunna (sayings/actions/way of living) are applied to every aspect of life. I read about guidelines for marriage, then turn around and see people trying similar things in my own culture. The terrorism scare aside, it seems like some people would be happier as a Muslim.

OMG, Hell hath frozen over
 

I actually agree with tw.

He's right, marriage is all about legal rights, care and survivorship.
I won't even get into the whole "love, honor and cherish" thing.

I also have personally witnessed scenes such as he described and wished things were different so that the partner wouldn't get screwed at such a stressful time. I've even heard of one man being forcibly excluded from the funeral of his longtime lover.

To me, this is wrong. :mad:

Brian

The family would still have hated him if they were married.

That won't change.