Gay marriage

[toddjh]

Now call me a bigot and dismiss me along with the great majority of people who believe in preserving normalcy of marriage and family.

Where does this concept of "normalcy" you have come from? The current arrangement of one man and one woman in an equal partnership is a very recent invention. For most of human history, marriages have been political tools rather than loving relationships, and the man was clearly in control. Monogamy is also a very new development.

Homosexuality also occurs in nature, you know. In fact, given that a wide range of species practice it, I think it's fair to say that it predates the entire concept of marriage by quite a few thousand years.

Besides, if you don't want to enter into a gay marriage, it's very simple: don't! Why do you feel threatened by them? How does something other people do affect the "normalcy" of your marriage and family? If your relationships are so fragile that they can't survive the fact that some gay people miles away want to be married, well, what does that say about you?

Jeremy

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by American
No right or wrong, just different. Got it.

When my sister married a man who was not white my grandmother cried for days and begged her to change her mind. Her prejudice was not born out of hate, but fear. She grew up in a time when doing that would, at best, make you a social outcast and possibly get you killed. Happily, decades later, her fears have proven groundless. The world has changed a great deal.

Originally posted by American
But never biology. Ever. Except the liberal goal is to promote androgeny and squash concepts of natural sex and gender.

Biology? Whatever mechanism in you that makes you favor the opposite gender in some people is mixed up and makes them feel that same magical feeling for their same gender. That's biology. It's not very common, but it's real enough.

I don't know about this liberal goal you speak of. That sounds more like fashion to me.

Originally posted by American
Now call me a bigot and dismiss me along with the great majority of people who believe in preserving normalcy of marriage and family.

I'm hardly dismissing you, I'm speaking to you. I didn't write this for those who already agree, I wrote it for those who don't. I also believe in preserving the normalcy of marriage, I just want to extend it to those who are denied it. If two people love each other and want to build a life together, they should be allowed to do so.

 

[Cleopatra]

Mycroft, I am sorry for the delayed reply, I just wanted to reply to this thread at my pace.

I certainly understand your feelings on marriage and I know many who share them. Given these feelings, I'm very happy for you that you have the opportunity to choose not to participate again in this custom.

I wouldn't get married the first place but my husband believed in the sanctity of marriage and I thought that doing him this favor wouldn't harm me.

However, legal discriminations between married people and singles are a separate issue.

I don't think that this is a separate issue because this is the main argument of those who support the gay marriage. The legalization of the gay marriage wants to abolish the descrimination between heterosexual and homosexual couples but it doesn't address a more serious discrimination, the discrimination between married and singles.

Why single citizens cannot enjoy the privileges the married citizens can? Don't you agree that this is a discrimination?

The custom of marriage has been around for thousands of years, and the specific details of the rights, benefits and obligations that come with it are subject to change with time and locality.

True but the custom of marriage was used as a tool to control the society. Historically speaking marriage has been a tool in keeping apart different social and racial groups. Especially in USA it was used as a tool to control immigration.

I don't see why liberals party about the legalization of the gay marriage. I would join the party if every privilege for the married was abolished and citizens were equal in front of law.On the contrary, I find disheartening the fact that gays instead of fighting for the abolishment of the privileges of the married they fought to join the club of the privileged. Give me a reason to be happy about that and I will.

If we assume that the social and legal details of this custom could be adjusted to suit your preferences, would you still object to same-gender couples having the same opportunity to participate?

I don't care about what people do in their lives as long I don't witness it and pay for it.Tell me something Mycroft. Marriage was for thousands of years the symbol of heterosexual union. Every religion, even the most ancient ones have tales for this union : the sacred union of the male and the female. Now our society is supposed to have progressed and now we have the tools( legislation) to resolve issues that pop up from every kind of relationship. Your cat can inherit you if this is what you wish. Why gays wanted so much to go to the church to get married. I see two possible answers: They wanted to ridicule the institution OR they believe in the sanctity of marriage.

Since you stated in your opening post that everything can be resolved if you have a good lawyer( I add here: a good banker and a good accountant are really useful as well) why you are pro the gay marriage? Is the sanctity of marriage you believe in and you believe that the grace of God provides for the gays as well?

BTW Are gays going to sign prenuptial agreements now? Am I the only person that finds this perspective ridiculous?

 

[Skeptic]

Why are things better after marriage? What changed??

To paraphrase Louis Armstrong, "If you have to ask, you ain't never going to know".

A more detailed answer would be something like, "Seriousness. Commitment. Love. Future. Dedication to each other." and other similar statements, but in reality, it's not something that can be really explained in words.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by American
Except the liberal goal is to promote androgeny and squash concepts of natural sex and gender.

Any more than the "conservative goal" is to promote their irrational gender-orientation prejudices and squash freedom of choice?

Now call me a bigot and dismiss me along with the great majority of people who believe in preserving normalcy of marriage and family.

Out of curiosity, if the "great majority of people" you're talking about are opposed to gay marriage, and if they're truly the "great majority" in the first place, then how do the small minority who would choose a different path threaten the preservation of that "normalcy"?

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by toddjh
Besides, if you don't want to enter into a gay marriage, it's very simple: don't! Why do you feel threatened by them? How does something other people do affect the "normalcy" of your marriage and family? If your relationships are so fragile that they can't survive the fact that some gay people miles away want to be married, well, what does that say about you?

These questions were posted a few days ago, but they do not appear to have been answered. Can anyone who opposes gay marriage manage to put together a clear, well thought out response to them?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Mycroft, I am sorry for the delayed reply, I just wanted to reply to this thread at my pace.

I wouldn't get married the first place but my husband believed in the sanctity of marriage and I thought that doing him this favor wouldn't harm me.

Which means that you entered the covenant of marriage with a less than positive attitude, which didn’t speak well for its long-term viability?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I don't think that this is a separate issue because this is the main argument of those who support the gay marriage. The legalization of the gay marriage wants to abolish the descrimination between heterosexual and homosexual couples but it doesn't address a more serious discrimination, the discrimination between married and singles.

Perhaps you and I are thinking of different rights. When you say rights of married persons versus singles, I’m thinking of tax advantages and the difficulty of buying single portions of food in grocery stores. This is very different from the rights of married couples versus unmarried couples, which includes the rights to make important decisions for one another (such as in medical situations) and rights of survivorship, and the right to have both members of the couple make parental decisions for a child.

Which specific discriminations between married and single peoples are you speaking of?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Why single citizens cannot enjoy the privileges the married citizens can? Don't you agree that this is a discrimination?

Anything that makes a distinction between two things is a discrimination, the real question is it an unfair or unjust discrimination? In my opinion, society has a legitimate right to encourage and promote such institutions that reinforce the fundamentals of society, and marriage, which creates family relationships for mutual support and creates a framework for the care and upbringing of the next generation, certainly falls within that category.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
True but the custom of marriage was used as a tool to control the society. Historically speaking marriage has been a tool in keeping apart different social and racial groups. Especially in USA it was used as a tool to control immigration.

I’m tempted to challenge your perception of the history of marriage as being unnecessarily pessimistic, but I don’t think that has any real relevance to our discussion here. Customs and institutions change with time, and they change because we seek to improve them.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I don't see why liberals party about the legalization of the gay marriage. I would join the party if every privilege for the married was abolished and citizens were equal in front of law. On the contrary, I find disheartening the fact that gays instead of fighting for the abolishment of the privileges of the married they fought to join the club of the privileged. Give me a reason to be happy about that and I will.

I think I will withhold comment on this until I learn the specific discriminations you’re speaking of.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I don't care about what people do in their lives as long I don't witness it and pay for it.

Can you clarify what it is you don’t want to witness? From the context of this post such a statement would lead me to assume that you don’t attend weddings, but I think you’re more sociable than that.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Tell me something Mycroft. Marriage was for thousands of years the symbol of heterosexual union. Every religion, even the most ancient ones have tales for this union : the sacred union of the male and the female. Now our society is supposed to have progressed and now we have the tools( legislation) to resolve issues that pop up from every kind of relationship. Your cat can inherit you if this is what you wish. Why gays wanted so much to go to the church to get married. I see two possible answers: They wanted to ridicule the institution OR they believe in the sanctity of marriage.

I’m looking for what it was you wanted me to tell you, and I’m not finding it so I’ll just give you a few thoughts based upon what you said:

While I favor the idea of gay marriages, I would oppose forcing any specific church to perform the ceremony. Church membership is a voluntary thing, and it is within the rights of any church to decide what is and is not acceptable within their own congregations. For example, many churches refuse to perform interfaith ceremonies. If a same gender couple wants a church wedding, it should be up to them to find the church that will perform it.

I would also favor a tool of legislation that would mimic marriage. In common usage, it would be called the same thing and time would erase the distinction until the law is amended to reflect that. As a step toward fairness, it would be a good one.

Every religion (that I am aware of) also has tales of unions that do not conform to modern standards of normalcy. Hagar was not the wife of Abram, Jacob had two wives, and if you look really closely at the relationship between David and Jonathan, well, you just have to wonder about that one.

I don’t believe gays want the right of marriage to mock the institution. Legal sanction is not required for that. I do believe that Jenny and Linda from my own example would like the official recognition of the sacredness of their own union.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Since you stated in your opening post that everything can be resolved if you have a good lawyer( I add here: a good banker and a good accountant are really useful as well) why you are pro the gay marriage? Is the sanctity of marriage you believe in and you believe that the grace of God provides for the gays as well?

If one depends on a good lawyer, banker and accountant to define their rights, then one is reserving those rights for those educated and wealthy enough to take advantage of these avenues. I think the issue is more basic than that, which is why I no longer consider that a valid reason to deny same gender couples the recognition of marriage.

I am far too humble to pretend to know the mind of God,. but I do hope his grace makes allowances for these unfortunate people. My own religion is quite clear that homosexuality is not acceptable, however I also believe in a society that allows citizens the freedom not to live their lives by the rules defined by any one religion. The way I see it, if I want the freedom to worship in the way I want, I must support the freedom of someone else to worship in the way of his choosing, or even not at all.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
BTW Are gays going to sign prenuptial agreements now? Am I the only person that finds this perspective ridiculous?

Given the chance, I’m sure homosexuals will make idiots of themselves in all the same ways heterosexuals do. Life is full of irony.

 

[Cleopatra]

Which means that you entered the covenant of marriage with a less than positive attitude, which didn’t speak well for its long-term viability?

On the contrary, it means that I entered marriage without hesitating to make the necessary compromises that are a prerequisite of any successful relationship, afterall I wasn't an atheist. But no I didn't wear a wedding dress.I wasn't getting married during carnival this is the reason why I avoided it.

Perhaps you and I are thinking of different rights. When you say rights of married persons versus singles, I’m thinking of tax advantages and the difficulty of buying single portions of food in grocery stores.

As you know tax advantages are not just tax privileges. They are important, also the issue of the insurance is important. In many European countries ( Greece included) married employees are getting a 10% higher wage according to the law. It's their right.Also, a series of issues that have to do with taxation through heritage are equally important rights that married people enjoy.

This is very different from the rights of married couples versus unmarried couples, which includes the rights to make important decisions for one another (such as in medical situations) and rights of survivorship, and the right to have both members of the couple make parental decisions for a child.

As you have pointed out in your opening post those issues can be resolved with a legal document.

Anything that makes a distinction between two things is a discrimination, the real question is it an unfair or unjust discrimination?

Could you explain me the difference between those two in our topic?

In my opinion, society has a legitimate right to encourage and promote such institutions that reinforce the fundamentals of society, and marriage, which creates family relationships for mutual support and creates a framework for the care and upbringing of the next generation, certainly falls within that category.

Which is this society who has such a right that you go as far as consider it legitimate? The majority that enjoys those privileges maybe?

I’m tempted to challenge your perception of the history of marriage as being unnecessarily pessimistic, but I don’t think that has any real relevance to our discussion here. Customs and institutions change with time, and they change because we seek to improve them.

Don't try to project my opinion on the field of feelings. Customs and institutions regarding marriage have NOT changed although the society has changed, this is my point. Instead of abolishing old customs like mariage we encourage them.

I think I will withhold comment on this until I learn the specific discriminations you’re speaking of.

Read above.

Can you clarify what it is you don’t want to witness? From the context of this post such a statement would lead me to assume that you don’t attend weddings, but I think you’re more sociable than that.

It was just an expression. I don't have the right to judge the way you bring up your child unless you invite me at your house and you start beating it in front of my eyes. This is what I meant. I pay for the privileges the married citizens enjoy though and now I will have to pay for more couples.

While I favor the idea of gay marriages, I would oppose forcing any specific church to perform the ceremony. Church membership is a voluntary thing, and it is within the rights of any church to decide what is and is not acceptable within their own congregations. For example, many churches refuse to perform interfaith ceremonies. If a same gender couple wants a church wedding, it should be up to them to find the church that will perform it.

Ok but you bring an owl to Athens now.

I would also favor a tool of legislation that would mimic marriage. In common usage, it would be called the same thing and time would erase the distinction until the law is amended to reflect that. As a step toward fairness, it would be a good one.

I am glad you seem to see my point that we have a problem. I want a tool that it will protect me from paying things and privileges I don't enjoy. I want "society" to encourage people to get married by any other way than providing legal and financial rights unmarried people do not enjoy.

Every religion (that I am aware of) also has tales of unions that do not conform to modern standards of normalcy. Hagar was not the wife of Abram, Jacob had two wives, and if you look really closely at the relationship between David and Jonathan, well, you just have to wonder about that one.

No no I am sorry. There are no extracts from the texts that supporty your opinion. These are interpretations of the texts. It reminds me the story about Achilles and Patroklos. Gays want them gays. I want them Jews. Martin Bernal wanted them blacks, these are not serious things. "The society" you mentioned previously wasn't based on homosexual relationships, it has glorified the heterosexual union.BTW What Jesus was doing with those male students, I am sure that gays have a theory about that.

I don’t believe gays want the right of marriage to mock the institution. Legal sanction is not required for that. I do believe that Jenny and Linda from my own example would like the official recognition of the sacredness of their own union.

So it is about the sanctity of marriage then. In that case religions do not consider gay unions sacred on the contrary. Maybe for your friends their relationship is sacred why do they ask us to pay for their relationship? Why don't they help us instead to abolish those beliefs instead of joining the stutus quo who wants societies stuck into medieval practices?

If one depends on a good lawyer, banker and accountant to define their rights, then one is reserving those rights for those educated and wealthy enough to take advantage of these avenues. I think the issue is more basic than that, which is why I no longer consider that a valid reason to deny same gender couples the recognition of marriage.

This was a serious argument. I took it down.I now lobby for easy and affordable to the general public legal civil unions. Lobby with me Mycroft, we might win.

I am far too humble to pretend to know the mind of God,. but I do hope his grace makes allowances for these unfortunate people.

Me too but the grace of God doesn't pay my bills and unfortunately doesn't recognize me as an equal citizen.

My own religion is quite clear that homosexuality is not acceptable, however I also believe in a society that allows citizens the freedom not to live their lives by the rules defined by any one religion. The way I see it, if I want the freedom to worship in the way I want, I must support the freedom of someone else to worship in the way of his choosing, or even not at all.

Me too. I am pro the ritual, pro the ceremony, I am against the legal obligations and privileges that spring from a marriage.

Given the chance, I’m sure homosexuals will make idiots of themselves in all the same ways heterosexuals do. Life is full of irony.

I cannot provide you with statistics but according to my firm's records, the more a couple believed in its unique relationship the more complicated the prenuptual agreement was...

 

[Thanz]

As you know tax advantages are not just tax privileges. They are important, also the issue of the insurance is important. In many European countries ( Greece included) married employees are getting a 10% higher wage according to the law. It's their right.Also, a series of issues that have to do with taxation through heritage are equally important rights that married people enjoy. As you have pointed out in your opening post those issues can be resolved with a legal document.

Married people get paid more because they are married? I find this hard to believe. Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Let's say that Bob and Jane want to get married. Bob makes $40,000 a year and Jane makes $50,000 per year. In a glourious celebration of their love and committment, they get married. So now their employers have to pay Bob $44,000 and Jane $55,000? Is that right?

 

[Cleopatra]

Married people get paid more because they are married? I find this hard to believe. Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Let's say that Bob and Jane want to get married. Bob makes $40,000 a year and Jane makes $50,000 per year. In a glourious celebration of their love and committment, they get married. So now their employers have to pay Bob $44,000 and Jane $55,000? Is that right?

According to the law in some European countries one of them (not both) will take a 10% raise that is deducted from the salary of the singles!!!
In my office we have two secretaries. The married takes 10% more just because she is married and this 10% is protected by the law.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

If one depends on a good lawyer, banker and accountant to define their rights, then one is reserving those rights for those educated and wealthy enough to take advantage of these avenues.

You only really need to be educated, and that's the kind of world for me. Otherwise ...

from American:

Now call me a bigot and dismiss me along with the great majority of people who believe in preserving normalcy of marriage and family.

... we're subject to that majority, apparently.

from DoubleStreamer:

Out of curiosity, if the "great majority of people" you're talking about are opposed to gay marriage, and if they're truly the "great majority" in the first place, then how do the small minority who would choose a different path threaten the preservation of that "normalcy"?

The argument seems to be that, if they could, most people would be doing it, and most people wouldn't want that, of course. I think.

 

[Thanz]

According to the law in some European countries one of them (not both) will take a 10% raise that is deducted from the salary of the singles!!!
In my office we have two secretaries. The married takes 10% more just because she is married and this 10% is protected by the law.

I'm sorry for being so dense, but I am still confused. You say that the 10% raise is deducted from the singles. Do you mean that the money to pay for the married person's raise comes directly from the salary of the single person?

Or, is it that the gov't takes 10% from the married person's salary than they do from the single? Did your firm have to pay the married person more after they got married, or did the government just take less of their paycheque?

 

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

True but the custom of marriage was used as a tool to control the society.

There was no marriage before property law, in my opinion. Or if there was, it was at the stage of "Oi, you looking at my bird?" With property comes inheritance and legitimacy. But not, from the early history we have available, one man, one woman. One man of property, multiple wives. Marriage was only really important for the propertied. The English Church didn't require a priest to be present at a country wedding until 1570-ish, as I recall, and such weddings were generally in recognition of pregnancy. There's clearly a distinction between parents and non-parents, long recognised. But between single and married non-parents? Only since we've all become somewhat propertied and when statute law has replaced the old family- and village-level judgements.

There's the rub: common property, pensions, recognition as next-of-kin, etc. has to be defined by statute. Civil marriage already covers all this reasonably successfully, so why not extend the same principles to any group that wishes to make a life together?

It sounds like Greece has a government policy of encouraging marriage for its own sake, which is freakin' bizarre.

 

[Loon]

Also, Thanz, not sure where I read this and don't care enough to link, but there does seem to be a glass ceiling effect for singles. You're more likely to get promoted and stuff if you're married and whatnot. Some sort of social prejudice or something.

Though I may be thinking about studies of Japan...

 

[Mycroft]

According to the law in some European countries one of them (not both) will take a 10% raise that is deducted from the salary of the singles!!!

You can't be saying that right. The maried persons extra wage isn't taken from the single persons pay, is it?

 

[Cleopatra]

I'm sorry for being so dense, but I am still confused. You say that the 10% raise is deducted from the singles. Do you mean that the money to pay for the married person's raise comes directly from the salary of the single person?

In the low wage those who are married take a 10% more. In privare companies the 10% is deducted from the singles' salary to cover the raise of the married.

Only last week, some friends started a company of their own and in order to win time and money I agreed to witness the negotiations between the partners. In the agreement they signed they all agreed that a 10% would be deducted from the singles to cover the married ones and when the rest would get married the mmajority would cover their 10% from the profits. Everything according to the Greek Law. I tried to point out to them that there was a loophole they could use but all of them defended the sanctity of marriage and of the 10% fiercly. ...

Capel Dodger the issue you raise bothers me some time now. The concept of the sanctity of marriage is really old though, the legal consequences that sping from marriage did not exist but the concept was pretty much existent since antiquity.