Warning!! Don't bother opening if you're not of the Christian Faith:>)

[ScottyG]

I think a same sex couple being allowed marraige would cheapen what I have with my husband.

I know this is the kind of argument that just can't be won by either of us... but I just can't believe that it could possibly cheapen marriage to let a loving, caring couple dedicate themselves to each other... while drunk people who've never met each other can get married on a whim by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas, but that doesn't cheapen marriage?

Also, go talk to some straight, married people in rural Massachusetts, for instance. Ask them how their marriages have changed since gay marriage was made legal. That's where my wife's family is, and they're rather conservative people, but they'll say... "well, never met any gay folks before. Don't meet 'em now. Doesn't change my life a darn bit."

 

[Quail_Antwerp]

I think a same sex couple being allowed marraige would cheapen what I have with my husband.

I know this is the kind of argument that just can't be won by either of us... but I just can't believe that it could possibly cheapen marriage to let a loving, caring couple dedicate themselves to each other... while drunk people who've never met each other can get married on a whim by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas, but that doesn't cheapen marriage?

Also, go talk to some straight, married people in rural Massachusetts, for instance. Ask them how their marriages have changed since gay marriage was made legal. That's where my wife's family is, and they're rather conservative people, but they'll say... "well, never met any gay folks before. Don't meet 'em now. Doesn't change my life a darn bit."

I said I thinkwhich means it's how I personally feel about it. It would make me personally feel that marraige is no longer sacred.

And I don't know why the minority should be allowed to decide what is right in this issue. So because the minority gay community wants to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, we should just roll over and let them?

 

[ScottyG]

I don't think the minority OR the majority should decide. I think the courts should decide. Based on what's constitutionally sound, not based on what the majority wants.

 

[annmarie]

Which brings us back to my solution, the legal marriage (civil union) should be completely separated from the holy marriage. Quail, you and your husband could be civilly unioned, to receive legal rights through the government as a couple, and also married by your church, since this is something you believe in, while others who are not religious or whose bond is not respected by various religions can still be given the same legal rights as you in their legal civil union, without the church marriage. This way, individual churches can go on believing what they like, while the Constitution can also be honored, and no one needs to be trying to coerce the other.

 

[ScottyG]

I totally get what you're saying, annmarie, and why it might be a viable solution in the short-term. I'm an idealist, though, and I just don't see it as good enough. I don't want to have to explain to my daughter that everyone used to get married, but when gay people wanted to get married, we invented a new "civil union" category for them, because we didn't want to let them in on "marriage," so we kept them separate but equal.

Also, to bring it up again, because I used to work in an "open and affirming" Methodist church, when you say "individual churches can go on believing what they like," well if church marriages were forbidden to gay people because of the civil union option's existence, then that Methodist church I worked in would not be allowed to practice what they preach. And, to keep going with my thoughts for a moment, "individual churches can go on believing what they like" is something that would still be true if gay marriage were legalized. No church would be forced to marry gay people against its will. They would just have the option of doing so.

 

[FarmerChick]

Quail

I am like you. I find it definitely not natural in this world...but I am fine with people living together, but don't let it be "marriage"---I know what you mean.

Of course ya'll -- these are personal feelings, how we feel ya know. Some are going to be die hards, like me and Quail about the marriage issue, some will be more give and take and some say, do as you please.

Don't forget the financial stand point of this. Insurance companies don't want "husbands" on the family plan in gay marriages....it changes their profits. Govt. will have to "pay" out survivor benefits in social security to the partner....etc. etc......some rights in marriage do mean money, and it WILL effect the economy etc. if gays "marry" and have the rights of a real marriage between men and women. not saying this is good or bad, but there is an ecomonic effect.

oh well...just rambling.

I say all do what they want, but don't shove it in my face to go against my nature and my God.......so I just try to avoid these things..LOL-LOL---ostrich in the sand sometimes is the best way to go in these times..HA HA

oh edited to say...I have gay friends I know...I tell them my feelings, I get the "eye roll" of course and the arguments, but to me, again, it just doesn't change how I feel about the nature of it. oh well...they like me anyway..HA HA

 

[ScottyG]

I don't mean to come off too strong in this, I just have very strong feelings about it. A good half of my closest friends in this world are gay, including my child's godparents, so I have quite intense opinions. Sorry if I get carried away.

Quail

I am like you. I find it definitely not natural in this world...but I am fine with people living together, but don't let it be "marriage"---I know what you mean.

I think it's great that you are fine with people living together. But even that is jeopardized by not having the right to marriage. How about my male friend who fell in love with a visiting male student from France? They lived together for 5 years, had a non-binding "commitment" ceremony. Then his partner lost his visa when the US tightened restrictions, and was forced to leave the country because they weren't legally married. Now, for the past 10 years or so, they travel across the ocean to see other as much as possible, but it's too expensive for them to do often. I think that's a tragedy, and one that we should prevent.

And I'm uncomfortable with the argument that they should "keep it to themselves." Think about how much we all bring up our husbands and wives, our children, and our home lives here on this message board, and in our everyday lives. Would you really be able to lead a happy life without ever being able to mention your spouse or your home life in public? If every time we had a discussion about ourselves, you had to silence your thoughts because you didn't want to offend anyone by being yourself?

 

[annmarie]

I totally get what you're saying, annmarie, and why it might be a viable solution in the short-term. I'm an idealist, though, and I just don't see it as good enough. I don't want to have to explain to my daughter that everyone used to get married, but when gay people wanted to get married, we invented a new "civil union" category for them, because we didn't want to let them in on "marriage," so we kept them separate but equal.

Also, to bring it up again, because I used to work in an "open and affirming" Methodist church, when you say "individual churches can go on believing what they like," well if church marriages were forbidden to gay people because of the civil union option's existence, then that Methodist church I worked in would not be allowed to practice what they preach. And, to keep going with my thoughts for a moment, "individual churches can go on believing what they like" is something that would still be true if gay marriage were legalized. No church would be forced to marry gay people against its will. They would just have the option of doing so.

Im not saying that churches couldnt marry gay couples if they wanted to, Im just saying it would be entirely up to that individual churches doctrine. The Methodist church could go on marrying gay couples who would like to be married under the Methodist Church, but if the Catholic church did not believe in gay marriage, it would be impossible for a gay couple to married under the Catholic Church, see what I mean? All couples (straight and gay) would have to be civilly unioned to receive all legal rights, but then it would be that couples decision whether or not they want to be married in a church to receive the marriage blessing of that religion, and it would be up to that church whether they want to give you that blessing or not. That way every couple that wants the legal benefits would need to be civilly unioned, and if they wanted a church marriage blessing, it would be up to each couple and their church/religion.
I have a friend who was recently married, but her and her husband originally wanted to do a civil union rather than a marriage, I think mainly because they have a lot of gay friends and kind of wanted to do it as an act of solidarity (because any couple in my state can be civilly unioned, you do not have to be gay) but when they looked into the legal/financial stipulations, they realized how negatively they would be affected (because they would only receive the state benefits of marriage, but none of the federal) so they ended up getting married rather than doing the civil union.

 

[Homesteadmom]

One thing that irritates me is "they want the same rights" well as human beings they do have the same rights. They also bring up financial rights & inheiratance also. Well you are free to designate anyone you choose as a beneficary on your life insurance. You are free to buy a house together "with the right of survivorship" on the title. You are also free to designate whomever you choose on your power of attorny's, medical & durable. You are free to put anyone you choose in your will. Anyone can visit you in the hospital! So where are they losing out on these benefits? They aren't! But for those of us who are believer's the bible states it very plainly "man shall not lie down with man" that is part of why Sodhom & Gamorrah were destroyed.(not spelled correctly I know but I have a sick child laying on my & can't get to my bible rigt now.

 

[ScottyG]

Gotcha, annmarie, sorry for the confusion!

That last part of your post is the part that needs to be fixed in our country. The federal rights are important ones.

And I do see how real civil unions, with all the same benefits as marriage, could be a useful in-between step. But I still feel that it's discriminatory at its root to make a new institution to include gay people when the old institution is just fine and dandy. I know you're talking about letting EVERYONE get a civil union, but the idea just rubs me the wrong way that my gay friends' parents could get married, but not them. They have to get a civil union. If it's just a word difference, then why make the new word at all?

It strikes me that this is like Political Correctness, only from the other end of the political spectrum. Like, some people seem to be offended by the word "marriage" being applied to homosexuals, so we have to come up with the PC word "civil union" to avoid offending folks.

EDITED TO ADD:

HomesteadMom, I totally understand that your religious beliefs are that gay people should not be able to get married, and that they are wrong. And I think that's fine. Your religion should then NOT allow gay people to marry, and should condemn them. Fine by me. But the government does not make its laws by the bible, so a Justice of the Peace should not be affected by Sodom and Gomorrah, but by the constitution.