Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Riverwillows]

I guess I don't understand what there is to 'protect'. Marriage equality means EVERYONE can marry the one they love. Men and women who love each other will still be able to marry. They just won't be the only ones. Nothing is threatening their marriages....sooo.....what's to protect? Only thing I can think of, is backwards, outdated thinking.

 

Marriage as an institution, has been around since time began. People took vows to love each other exclusively. Much much longer than the MEN who wrote the various bibles of the world. Don't know why it even has to be an issue.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Riverwillows

[HeatherMarie]

I was incredibly surprised at the amount of people on my friends list who changed their picture. Some I had no idea were in support of equal rights, so it was a day brightener.

Same here! Nearly my entire Facebook friends-list is full of those red/pink signs (yup, I have it on mine), and it definitely surprised me. The woman who's majority of status updates is Bible quotations even did it. Plus a handful of school-friends who were sorta iffy when I came out. Plus plenty of acquaintances I didn't know well enough to know their stance on this... It's really wonderful to see such support.

 

  I guess I don't understand what there is to 'protect'. Marriage equality means EVERYONE can marry the one they love. Men and women who love each other will still be able to marry. They just won't be the only ones. Nothing is threatening their marriages....sooo.....what's to protect? Only thing I can think of, is backwards, outdated thinking.

 

Aaaand there's where the breakdown in thinking is. Or, in logic. Or rationality. Or whatever. People honestly believe that THEY, ie man + woman, are the ONLY ones who should be *allowed* to marry. Doesn't necessarily matter that gay people getting married wouldn't *actually* affect them in any way, they don't think we are "good" or "Godly" enough (or whatever) to be allowed to have the right to marry. It's a load of carp, but yeah, I've been through this many times with people. And 99% of the time, if you try counter-arguing every point they make with actual logic and truth, eventually they run out of excuses and fall back on "but it's just wrong!" or somesuch.

[Syaoransbear]

There are way too many variations of those pink and red signs and I don't understand half of them. One is a pink heart with one line through it on a red background. I saw another that is the pink equal sign on a red background but there is a white A going through the equal sign. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Atheist? Agnostic? Asexual? Apathetic? Anti-equality? What?!

Edited March 28, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[Fuzzbucket]

Would you be more willing for the government to define all marriages as civil unions, have all the rights and responsibilties of marriages transfered to that legal definition and allow churches to define marriage within their confines so everyone has access to the advantages of being married?

YES YES YES.

 

Excuse me

 

Marriage (or whatever it ended up being called) should be ENTIRELY civil for EVERYONE and anything involving god should be an add-on - like in France, where it has always been thus.

[brairtrainer]

YES YES YES.

 

Excuse me

 

Marriage (or whatever it ended up being called) should be ENTIRELY civil for EVERYONE and anything involving god should be an add-on - like in France, where it has always been thus.

Maybe the United States needs to learn some lessons from the French!

 

By the way question for you guys, my dad and I are of similar mind, that the government should just call all marriages civil unions and have marriage rights be transfered to all civil unions. However he claims that by doing that that you open up arguments for polygamy.

 

How does one argue with this? I've stated that France has had little to no trouble with this and they have a civil union system, and that if it did become an issue here then we just say a person can enter into multiple civil unions, as long as their other civil partners agree. The other civil partner does not have to enter in with the other person if they don't want to but it would be an option for those who do. Is this a good way to try and debase his arguement?

[Fuzzbucket]

Maybe the United States needs to learn some lessons from the French!

 

By the way question for you guys, my dad and I are of similar mind, that the government should just call all marriages civil unions and have marriage rights be transfered to all civil unions. However he claims that by doing that that you open up arguments for polygamy.

 

How does one argue with this? I've stated that France has had little to no trouble with this and they have a civil union system, and that if it did become an issue here then we just say a person can enter into multiple civil unions, as long as their other civil partners agree. The other civil partner does not have to enter in with the other person if they don't want to but it would be an option for those who do. Is this a good way to try and debase his arguement?

Easy. A civil union is between two people, in all the places where they have such things. End of.

 

So all you have to say is you can only enter into one. Otherwise it is bigamy. Whatever your gender.

Edited March 28, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[brairtrainer]

Easy. A civil union is between two people, in all the places where they have such things. End of.

 

So all you have to say is you can only enter into one. Otherwise it is bigamy. Whatever your gender.

Thank you Fuzz!

 

Man you are all over answering my questions aren't you

[Fuzzbucket]

Thank you Fuzz!

 

Man you are all over answering my questions aren't you

BEEcause - I feel VERY STRONGLY about this.

 

Not least because I object to being "married" myself. Not to being legally attached to to the person I am married to - but to the fact that although we did it as unchurchly as was possible, the word still carries that churchy smell and people are still slightly surprised when I say I was NOT married in church (partly, I admit, because my father was a minister, but also because when you say you are married, people DO tend to assume that.). I am very cross that I was not given the option of a civil partnership myself (and I am also cross that the UK government will not even now offer that option.)

 

So I think about it a lot ! And growl to myself....

[vintageandroid]

Maybe the United States needs to learn some lessons from the French!

 

By the way question for you guys, my dad and I are of similar mind, that the government should just call all marriages civil unions and have marriage rights be transfered to all civil unions. However he claims that by doing that that you open up arguments for polygamy.

 

How does one argue with this? I've stated that France has had little to no trouble with this and they have a civil union system, and that if it did become an issue here then we just say a person can enter into multiple civil unions, as long as their other civil partners agree. The other civil partner does not have to enter in with the other person if they don't want to but it would be an option for those who do. Is this a good way to try and debase his arguement?

I know this is a whole 'nother argument but . . . what is so upsetting about polygamy/polyandry? I love your response in the end. It's about consent.

 

I'm in a polyamorous relationship and frankly, we will never be able to have that recognized by the government, despite us committing long-term and all of us living in the same house. So my girlfriend can't be on my insurance, nor on her boyfriend's, despite the two of them having been together for nearly ten years. And god forbid something happen where any of us get into the hospital . . . You might argue that's what we get for not committing to one person, but . . . she loves both of us, and we're all consenting adults. Why should she have to choose? Why should he or I have to do without her when we both love her?

 

I'm not out in the streets fighting for polygamy or anything--I'd rather focus on gay couples, since they're far more common than our situation, and I know that things like the FLDS church abuse the idea of polygamy dramatically--but it still makes me a little sad to know it just can't happen.

 

/off topic

[Fuzzbucket]

I know this is a whole 'nother argument but . . . what is so upsetting about polygamy/polyandry?  I love your response in the end.  It's about consent.

 

I'm in a polyamorous relationship and frankly, we will never be able to have that recognized by the government, despite us committing long-term and all of us living in the same house.  So my girlfriend can't be on my insurance, nor on her boyfriend's, despite the two of them having been together for nearly ten years.  And god forbid something happen where any of us get into the hospital . . .  You might argue that's what we get for not committing to one person, but . . . she loves both of us, and we're all consenting adults.  Why should she have to choose?  Why should he or I have to do without her when we both love her? 

 

I'm not out in the streets fighting for polygamy or anything--I'd rather focus on gay couples, since they're far more common than our situation, and I know that things like the FLDS church abuse the idea of polygamy dramatically--but it still makes me a little sad to know it just can't happen. 

 

/off topic

I have one VERY VERY small financial quibble with that one - you mention insurance. I do think that if you have multiple partners the COST paid for that insurance has to rise, simply because of the number of people it has to cover. Three partners giving birth on the same health insurance is - never going to be as cheap as one ! I have NO quarrel with all the other rights - visitation and inheritance and the rest that yes, you should have. But where being many costs more, I do think more has to be paid.

 

Nothing is distasteful about it, to me; if that's what you want - go for it. I do have slight fears of evil cult people forcing women into things, as that HAS happened in the past - but that is VERY small as a risk...

 

(This will not help brairtainer with dad... )

Edited March 28, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[Ayelldee]

snagged one of the eggs. I'm not on fb much anymore so I'll just show my support here

My wife snagged this image, but I just want one of the eggs, not both. How do I do that?

 

ETA: @Miss Bucket - Oddsox and I were not married in the church either.

 

ETA2: By the way, GOD was not the author of either the Old Testament or the New Testament, someone with an agenda wrote them both and paraphrased what he thought God WOULD have said because it was what he wanted his God to think/say.

 

ETA3: So, ok, I've gone back mumbledy pages and still can't find the little banner code thing. Someone help me out? And as far as I'm concerned it's two loving hearts that make a marriage - NOT what the two people in question have under their panties or shorts.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Ayelldee

[Fuzzbucket]

My wife snagged this image, but I just want one of the eggs, not both. How do I do that?

 

ETA: @Miss Bucket - Oddsox and I were not married in the church either.

 

ETA2: By the way, GOD was not the author of either the Old Testament or the New Testament, someone with an agenda wrote them both and paraphrased what he thought God WOULD have said because it was what he wanted his God to think/say.

But do you find that people assume you were ? I do.

 

And YES about the ****ing bible Paul has a HUGE lot to answer for, in particular.

[Ayelldee]

It just gets right up my nose when people start beatin' on the Bible saying that 'THIS IS THE WORD OF GAWDDDDDD' and no other path is righteous!!!!!! No t'isn't God's word, just some hateful guy wanting to get his own set of 'rules' down.

I feel that what two (or more) people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is nobody else's business, and that nobody has the right to say "Oh that's just so gross! you can't be doin' that! I'm gonna make damned SURE you stop that disssssgusting behavior!!!"

 

Don't like it? Keep your bleeping nose out of their business! Don't like gay marriage then don't ****ing HAVE one! But allow the gay and lesbian (trans and multis) to have and enjoy the same rights YOU have and enjoy. And don't tell me how 'loving and giving' you are because you follow the path of organized religion (I was raised Catholic - and the priests had the gall to tell us what we could and couldn't do in the bedroom!). If you don't believe that gays deserve the same HUMAN RIGHTS as straights - you're a hater, end of story.

[rilavision]

I for one am not Lesbian nor Bi-sexual whatever the case may be, but I support Gay Marriage 100% for the simple fact I have family members whom are Homosexual. Two of my aunts are lesbian and my cousin Irving is gay. I've never had a problem with anyone that was lesbian, gay, or bi-sexual. Many people go about gay marriage the wrong way and shun it way too much, especially the really religious ones who think being homosexual is a huge sin. In my perspective, God loves all; he does not judge and forgives, and that is how I was brought up. Weither man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman, people should be able to marry whomever they want. Marriage to me is not based off gender but based off of that you're going to commit to someone you LOVE no matter their gender.

 

*taking a breather after writing this*

[zaverxi]

Up until now it has and always will be a personal preference. If people don't like it, they should just ignore it, as it doesn't affect them in any way. It is not like gays are objecting to heterosexual partners and threatening to break them up at all, so I really don't see the issue with this. Why should anyone care what other people do? If it is a healthy, stable relationship, that is a better situation to raise kids than if it's a highly abusive relationship between a man and a woman, who have kids they might also abuse.

 

Or here's a situation. I went to a Catholic school for many years, and one of my former classmates, a model student, ended up getting a girl pregnant. So their parents forced them to get married so the kid wouldn't be born out of wedlock. I don't even know if he loved the girl or if it was just a one night stand. Do they have more rights to be parents simply because the kids belong to them? At this point, our society is saying that teen pregnancy is more acceptable, and that's wrong.

 

The adoption process does background checks on people before they're allowed to adopt, which takes lengths to check and see if they're suitable to raise kids or not. I'm not saying gay couples are better, far from it. There are bad relationships all around, but I'm saying that if it's a good relationship, they shouldn't be denied simply because they are gay or lesbian.

[AveryCF]

I suport it though and through, I grew up with my grandama's (nana's) loving each other. Only latter on when older learning the law didnt perment marrage so they always SAID they were 'marred' but never wwere. Just before 2012 christmas, my nana's were excited obama might alow them to marry and give the law out. But sadly one of them were claimed by cancer and they never got to marry.

I say if you love someone, and they love you back, that there SHOULDNT be a barryer saying you cant marry. Come on, blacks and white finaly get along and allow, why not same gender? :/ Honestly, im glad someone made this topic, finaly people I can chat and agree with. Didnt take long for me to find the YES icon with a red DC egg with the pink equils of the rights. Instantly I cut off what ever from my signature to add it.

[Blue Nadir]

Guys, if we did everything the Bible said, we'd be armpit deep in slavery and women being chattel to their fathers/husbands.

 

In South Africa, civil unions between gays/lesbians are legal and always(?) have been under the new constitution. It is viewed as a contract between two consenting adults. Polygamy, although I'm not a huge fan of it, is also legal (even our President is on wife number 5 if I recall).

 

This progressive thinking has however not stamped out decidedly primitive thinking among some in our society, as it isn't unusual for "corrective rapes" (lesbians being gang raped to "set them straight" - WTF?!) to occur in more rural areas.

 

Regardless of religious, moral(???!) or legal arguments against same-sex marriage, my question to naysayers is "How exactly is someone else's personal choices (ie choosing who to spend their lives with) directly affecting YOU?". Just because I don't like Pepsi, doesn't mean that my choice should be forced upon others or that I should be actively offended when I see someone else cracking open a Pepsi.

 

I really feel that the World should've advanced beyond something this petty. Love and let love!

[vintageandroid]

 

Just saw this on facebook and I thought it was Relevant to Your Interests.

 

Also--Fuzzbucket, your response to my post was excellent, and thank you. I won't respond in further detail because I don't want to take over the thread with my weirdness. But thanks.

[diannethegeek]

@vintageandroid: we do have a polygamy thread if you want to talk more about it, though it hasn't been bumped in ages: http://forums.dragcave.net/index.php?showtopic=102788&st=60

 

Back on topic, have you guys been reading some of the arguments coming out of the court in support of gay marriage? Some interesting questions are being raised: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/lawmake...--politics.html

Edited March 28, 2013 by diannethegeek

[Snowytoshi]

@vintageandroid: we do have a polygamy thread if you want to talk more about it, though it hasn't been bumped in ages: http://dragcave.net/teleport/b9d289e19dbd6...2a7f61331dc11d4

 

Back on topic, have you guys been reading some of the arguments coming out of the court in support of gay marriage? Some interesting questions are being raised: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/lawmake...--politics.html

The first link is a teleport link

[diannethegeek]

The first link is a teleport link

And that's what I get for having too many tabs open! Thanks! Fixing it now!

 

Here's another good quote from one of the Justices:

 

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor left the lawyer defending California’s Proposition 8 grasping for words Tuesday with a question about whether the state law banning gay marriage amounts to discrimination.

 

"Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits? Or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other decision-making that the government could make -- denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?"

 

Charles Cooper, the attorney arguing against gay marriage for the state of California, struggled to find a response.

 

“Your Honor, I cannot,” Cooper said. “I, I do not have, uh, uh, any, uh, anything to offer you in that regard.”

 

“If they’re a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren’t we treating them as a class for this one benefit?” Sotomayor then asked.

 

Cooper answered that marriage needed to be protected because of “responsible procreation” is a “vital” interest to the state and society and because “same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated.”

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/s...ics&ir=Politics

Edited March 28, 2013 by diannethegeek

[LascielsShadow]

What in the name of little green apples does "responsible procreation" mean?

 

I find it terribly amusing when basic logic stumps these people.

[Slaskia]

What in the name of little green apples does "responsible procreation" mean?

 

I find it terribly amusing when basic logic stumps these people.

Indeed...especially when there are a lot of people in the country as is that really shouldn't reproduce imo.

[Kishing]

What in the name of little green apples does "responsible procreation" mean?

It's just a rote response really, since it's one of the few non-religiously based arguments that pops up.

 

I feel almost sorry for the anti- side's lawyers. We saw this during the initial Prop 8 hearings too, where they failed to come up with reasonable counterarguments because none existed.

 

What'd you all think about Justice Roberts' comment that the LGBT lobby is too powerful to need this case heard in front of SCOTUS? It seemed silly to me because if they (we, lol) really were then we'd already have equal rights.

[Vhale]

The best reply to that I'd heard was, if power was the threshold for needing the Court's help, then none of those poor helpless corporations needed the help of Citizen's United to let them donate billions of dollars to super pacs.