Disclaimer: I believe that gays should get the same marriage benefits from the government as heterosexual married couples.
This debate is about, "What does marriage mean?"
If we do not have a working definition for the word, "marriage", then "gay marriage should be legal" makes no sense.
The reason "gay marriage should be legal" makes no sense is because a gay couple can have a ritual wedding/romantic ceremony and they can tell people that they are "married" and they will NOT get thrown in jail or harassed by the police. So in that sense, gay marriage is already legal. Granted, certain religions will NOT perform the ceremony but.... even if the state said that gays are allowed to get married, the state cannot force a religion to perform the ceremony.
If "marriage" is about "a couple being in love," then "gay marriage should be legal" makes no sense because, the government stating that you are married doesn't magically change how couples feel about each other. In other words, if "marriage" is about "a couple being in love," then gay marriage is already legal.
"Gay marriage should be legal" ONLY makes sense in the context of, "a gay couple should get the same marriage benefits from the government as heterosexual married couples." That's it. So gays should be petitioning the government for those right regardless of what the government decides to call it. In other words, if the government grants gays the same marriage benefits as heterosexual married couples but calls it a "Civil Union" then that should be good enough. If there's an issue with "separate but equal," then the government should stop using the word "marriage" and use the words "Civil Union" for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Catholic Church declaring full scale war on marriage equality
At first I thought this was going to be an article on the church stating that a wife should be subservient to her husband. Instead it's about the "language war" going on.
Remember when it used to be "abortionists" or "pro-abortion" on one side and "anti-abortion" on the other? And then they shifted the language to "pro-choice" and "pro-life" because, apparently, the issue was not about abortion at all. It was about "choice" and "life." Well..., they've done it again. It's no longer about "gay marriage," it's about "marriage equality."
I think people need to articulate (in precise detail) the purpose of marriage. Marriage is either extremely unique or it isn't. And if it is considered unique, we need to define what is so unique about it. What is the purpose of marriage? Why should 2 people get married? And maybe if we do this, we can also solve the problem of divorce.
But that's just me ;)
Sorry about the rant. And now back to one of my trivial debates ;)
Gay women usually hook up with a partner who is more like themselves. They usually make around the same amount of money so they are truly equal partners. Equal partners usually don't have that much sex (lesbian bed death). Think of a heterosexual relationship where they are equal partners. The man vacuums and does dishes. Do you think the woman sees him as manly, desirable and sexy? No. Those type of heterosexual couples also have less sex. But, those equal relationships are usually stable (as long as neither one of them wants to get laid).
That is good for gay women. But the fact that they make roughly the same amount of money means that they have to pay a marriage penalty. Couples who make roughly the same amount of money, pay more in taxes then a couple who make the same amount of money but the incomes are wildly different. This is why gay marriage is bad for gay women.
Gay men on the other hand, like heterosexual men, desire exotic partners. Partners who are unlike themselves. There's usually a gap in their income. This is good for gay men because they don't pay the marriage penalty. But (and this is a big butt) sometimes the submissive partner starts resenting being the bitch in the relationship (gets all butt hurt) and then the trouble starts. If the relationship breaks, currently, the dominant heterosexual partner pays the submissive partner spousal support through the nose. But the dominant gay partner gets to walk away with their income intact. If gay marriage goes through, you will see the spending power of gay men drop through the floor. Gay marriage impoverish gay men.
Save the gays from marriage!!!
there are a lot of benefits to being married, if you can stay together.
the movie "i now pronounce you chuck and larry" can give a lot of perspective on the subject.
imagine how many people would marry their friends in order to help them out. say you have a n awesome job great benefits, medical insurance, pentions life insurance policies, etc etc.and you have a good friend you grew up with that isnt so capable. both of you are too smart to marry a woman/go down that doomed road lose the house/pay child support/alamony....so you decide to marry each other and live together as bacholors...now youre both getting tax breaks and all kinds of other beni's that married couple get. do you think government or all the corporations that would lose out from that would like that?
the reason they allow man/woman marriages because they know more than half will fail within the first 5 years, ultimately bringing in a lot of differents kinds of revenue. in short the SYSTEM benifits a great deal from the stupid concept of marriage...but if most people were capable of really using that agreed upon partnership for their entire lives...marrige would be abolished.
i know a lot of you stupid fucks like to think of it in a holy way..."ahhh man and woman making a bond under god" but truth is...its all about business.
We have argued the reasons for gay marriage and which tactics should be persued. But we have yet to discuss the flip side. Why is it that there is so much resistance to gay marriage?
Could it be that straight people feel like they are being manipulated or is it that they're all homophobes? They can't all be homophobes. Not in this day and age. They can't all be biggots, not in this day and age.
And yet, if they feel they are being manipulated, which arguments make them feel that way? If they feel manipulated by a particular argument for gay marriage, maybe we can stop using that argument.
When I hear someone claim that the term marriage is superior to the term civil union, my perception is that that the person believes that other people will not accept civil unions on their own volition and that, therefore, the people's perceptions must be manipulated. One way to manipulate people's perception of a thing is to associate the thing with something people perceive as positive. If you want the reverse response, you associated it with something people perceive as being negative, like Hitler and Nazis.
A concept like gay marriage needs to be able to stand on its own merit. Without any need to associate it with anything. It is its own concept. Unique. People must see it for what it is and accept as such. People must not be forced into viewing it through rose color glasses (or glasses of any color). In other words, the other side shouldn't associate gay marriage with something negative in order to discredit it.
The problem with trying to manipulate people is that people are not stupid. They know when they are being manipulated and they push back. That is what I see happening right now with gay marriage. Which is why I advocate not pursuing that tactic (to both sides).
If marriage did not exist - would you invent it?Would you go, "Baby! This shit we got together, it's so good, we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment between us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit."
Embryos, sperm and eggs can be frozen and thawed out in the future and still be viable. We have invitro fertilization, surrugate mothers, fertility drugs and viagra. People are living longer and, at least for some cultures, the standard of living is increasing. Cell phones, unlimited call/text plans, and Skype has enabled people to be together 24/7. The internet has made porn ubiquous.
If the government were to use the word "marriage" for homosexual unions, then would churches be required to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies? If so, wouldn't this mean that the government is telling the church what it can and cannot do? Is it a good idea for the government to get into the "business" of religion? And if the churches are forced to perform homosexual weddings, would gay couples automatically be accepted by the congregation?
Should religious groups stop using the word "marriage" and create, define and patent a new word?
The government is not going to stop using the word "marriage." They have appropriated it. If religious groups create, define and patent a new word, then
they can define it any way they want and no one else can use it and/or re-define it.
The alternative is to spend Millions in order to reclaim the word "marriage."
Gays refused to accept the words, "Civil Union," and fought for the word, "Marriage."
The government could have allowed religion to have a monopoly on the word, "Marriage," while they themselves used the words, "Civil Union" exclusively for every union (in order to differentiate between a religious marriage and a state sanctioned marriage). But they didn't.
For the longest time, it was called "Gay Marriage." So, now that the law of the land is that the word "Marriage" will be used exclusively by the government to refer to every state sanctioned union, it may be time for the religious die-hards to take matters into their own hands and stop using the word "Marriage." Perhaps they can invent some new word or they can always fall back on the words "Religious Marriage."
What is a marriage license supposed to protect us from?
A gun license is supposed to protect us from crazy people.
A car license is supposed to protect us from bad drivers.
What is a marriage license supposed to protect us from?
Please provide your perspective below.
Would you go, "Baby! This shit we got together, it's so good, we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment between us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit."
Disclaimer: This is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm just trying to simplify things by separating the benefits afforded by marriage from the "emotional" aspects. This is not a "yes" vs "no" debate. There's no right or wrong. I just want expressions of ideas. By not having sides I hope to reduce the feeling of being threatened, attacked and the need to go on the defensive. I doubt I'll succeed but here it goes.
If gay marriage was strictly about expressing one's love, and commitment to another human being in front of firends and relatives, then gays would either have a non-religious ceremony and be done with it or petition/boycott/picket religious groups to perform the ceremony (regardless of legal benefits). But the fact that gays get very emotional about this issue means that there is an "emotional" aspect to gay marriage as well.
Instead, gays have been petitioning the government in order to get the law changed. One may argue that once the law is changed that religious institutions would have to follow suit (thus killing two birds with one stone) but the separation of church and state would prevent the government from telling religious institutions who they can and cannot marry. Therefore, if the law is changed then their only gain is in benefits. But if benefits were the whole story, then gays would focus strictly on obtaining said benefits and forget about the word "marriage."
I'll go out on a limb and claim that most people see the need for the government to promote certain behavior over another. For example, penalizing smoking in order to promote the good health of its citizens which in turn saves money spent on health care.
But having said that, if the government intends to promote heterosexual behaviors over homosexual behaviors, it has to openly specify which specific behavior it is promoting. For example, if the government wants to promote the reproductive behavior of heterosexuals (for the benefit of replacement level fertility) then it needs to provide benefits specifically for that behavior. In other words, it cannot tie that behavior to marriage.
Why make the distinction? Because I want to know exactly what it is that the government is trying to promote by giving married couples certain benefits. I want to know what those benefits are. I want to know which marriage benefits (if any) are not allowed under a civil union.
Why not just Google it? Because some of you guys are really good at Googling and finding nice visual aids ;)
So, if that's what I'm after, why the debate title? It gets people fired up and ready to debate and argue. I mean, think about why you clicked on this debate. In short, it gets me noticed (I guess I'm an attention whore) ;)
Consummation of a marriage is the first act of sexual intercourse between a married couple.
Sexual intercourse is defined as the penetration of the vagina by the penis.
Consummation traditionally, is what validates the marriage contract. Any marriage not consummated, can be broken off without a divorce.
Any "marriage" contract between the homosexual parties, is legally unenforceable, it is null and void because the contract can not be "signed," so to speak.
All credit for that argument goes to: http://www.createdebate.com/user/viewprofile/unownmew
It can be referenced here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/What_would_consummation_of_a_marriage_mean_in_relation_to_gay_marriage/debate
If religious people are so against sharing the word, "marriage," they should start using a new word if or when gay marriage becomes the law of the land. I propose, "A religious union" or how about, "A union between a man and a woman" ;)
It just occurred to me that many of you may not know what my position is on gay marriage.
My position on gay marriage is that as long as the gay community continues the fight to modify the definition of the word "marriage," they are going to have an uphill battle because they are going to be fighting 2 groups, the religious right AND the government. That's 2 fronts people!!! The gay community would fare better if they only had one front to deal with. Hitler tried to fight multiple fronts and look where that got him ;)
Now..., the question is..., which front should the gay community [attack] / [focus on]? Which front is [weaker] / [more reasonable]? I'll give you a hint..., it's NOT the religious right ;)
Another good military strategy is to get one of your opponents to switch sides and join you in your fight against the other opponent. Now..., the question is..., which side is more likely to switch sides? I'll give you a hint..., it's not the government ;)
I know, I know..., it doesn't make sense..., but please hear me out.
The government maintains control by dividing the people against each other. They practice, "Divide and Conquer." Have you noticed how the government pays lip service to both sides and does nothing except watch the two groups go at each other's throat?
If the gay community were to petition the government to stop using the word, "marriage" [because of its religious connotations and separation of church and state] then the religious right might join in because they would love to own the word, "marriage" outright. Then..., once that's done..., you petition the government to use the term, "Civil Union" for every domestic partnership, gay or hetero.
I know, I know..., brilliant..., right? But that's what I do. Think outside the box ;)
When you think about it, my idea is just crazy enough that it might work ;)
Even if the gay community decides not to implement my idea, it is a hell of a lot more entertaining, and original, than anything else either side has to offer ;)
Under the new rules of this site, as being negotiated by its members, you can no longer be classified as a homophobe just because you are against gay marriage. The intent of this rule is to minimize generalizations. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible. ;)