Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Viktorya]

Wait- I thought Prop 8 had been overturned months ago. Has it only just been ruled unconstitutional?

People have been challenging it for a while but it's only very recently been ruled unconstitutional. Gay marriage still isn't legal yet but it probably (hopefully!) will be soon. There are more details on the wikipedia page if you're really curious.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Viktorya

[arula]

Gay marriage was recently legalized in my state, and two of my best friends who've been together for years and years, and who are the single sweetest, most supportive couple I know, just got engaged! Pretty much exploding with delight right now. I mean I know this is going to ruin my husband's and my (heterosexual) marriage, so I guess that's a bummer, but other than that this is fantastic news.

Edited February 16, 2012 by arula

[Alex the Heir]

Love is a very wonderful thing, and everyone should be able to experience it to it's fullest extents. That is why I believe marriage should be equal for everyone. To me, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get married like that. Let people do what they want to do.

[hazeh]

You've met legions of homosexuals? Show me them.

 

But anyways, the only way I can see that "made gay by experiences" idea making sense is if someone was abused at one point in their lives, and now cling to the sex opposite of the one who abused them.

 

I know I've described my strange coming into homosexuality in this topic before. But myself, I didn't really have an evident sexuality at ALL until around seventh grade to ninth grade. I was attracted to males then. Very mildly attracted to them. Then in late ninth grade I discovered I was attracted to females (so I thought I was bisexual). But then came to completely shift to being attracted to only females. Now I do not find men attractive at all and can't even think of doing something sexual with them. Just feels wrong in my mind.

 

Absolutely nothing happened between that short period of liking men to liking women. Nothing at all. And now looking back farther in my childhood, even before seventh grade, I can see hints of me being attracted to women. I just didn't know what it was, I guess.

 

 

You totally just described me right there. *applauds*

[twoleafclover]

I'm for it! The main issue people have with gay mariage isn't the marriage part, it's the gay part. The think that allowing gay marriages is encouraging homosexuality and the banning marriage for them will somehow make them straight. That logic makes no sense. If someone is gay, not allowing them to get married isn't going to change anything. All it does is decrease their happiness and cut back on the rights they would have as a married couple and if they break up.

 

Edited February 16, 2012 by NixAyum

[Dhevix]

Now I realize how touchy this is and how mean this may seem to some, but I believe that something happens to that person in their life to make them gay. Whether it's as simple as their environment they live in or a drastic moment in their life happens to them. Something makes them resort to looking to the other sex. Obviously, (and around here there's a lot) goes for bisexual or anything else for that matter.

Whilst I think this can surely be a factor, I don't really think it explains cases of homosexuality in animals (which we've found are far more commonplace than historically thought)... whilst a number of homosexual behaviors between animals are documented between animals, it's interesting to note that there's a particular monkey of which the entire species is bisexual- 'straightness' can't be the only sexuality which can be simply in a living thing's DNA.

 

I think social conditioning plays a huge part in sexuality; what we are told is correct, or attractive all our lives tends to define the standard set for what we call 'beautiful'. Probably not the best example but women in China used to have their feet bound so that they would grow deformed, but tiny as was desirable at the time; I don't think that preference comes naturally and people tend to be so much as repulsed by it now but hey, that was the standard of the time because society portrayed it as such.

[NobleOwl]

Now I realize how touchy this is and how mean this may seem to some, but I believe that something happens to that person in their life to make them gay. Whether it's as simple as their environment they live in or a drastic moment in their life happens to them. Something makes them resort to looking to the other sex. Obviously, (and around here there's a lot) goes for bisexual or anything else for that matter.

 

So how do you then explain those who go through traumatic experiences, bordering on torture to make themselves straight, and then have it fail? By your logic, shouldn't it work?

 

And how do you explain a gay five year old who has never been exposed to the term, has never met any gay people, has no idea homosexuality exists, has never been abused or rejected by males in any way and still is a lesbian?

 

Just wondering how you make sense of that.

[Sadako]

Forgive me for posting a meme or whatever this is, but:

 

 

I think it's pretty much undeniable at this point (at least to those of us who are ourselves queer) that nature plays the biggest part in sexuality and gender identity. After all, if we could all make a choice or get over a trauma to change our orientation, then we could all live in a world without prejudice and without the government telling us who we should and shouldn't love. Why would we not all go ahead and do that and live normal lives? Because it is impossible.

 

Could you turn yourself gay if gay was the norm and people thought it was trauma that had made you straight?

[MysticTiger]

I can't stress enough how much Gay Marriage needs to happen. I can't stand that our government seems to think it's OK to unconstitutionally block people from marrying. It just shows that all the current government officials are just old men and women who have no clue how the real world works.

 

Also, any candidate that outright states that he will illegalize gay marriage (like Mitt Romney just recently did) should just quit while they're ahead. I can't stand people like him. It's OK to have an opinion. But to say that two people who want to get married SHOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL FOR HAVING SUCH THOUGHTS, it ridiculous and sickening. I think he should be thrown in jail for saying such things.

 

I am a straight women who will walk to the ends of the earth for the legalization of gay marriage. We can have equal rights for race and religion, but not for marriage? When did this become an OK thing to do? :|

[Walker]

Does it really matter if someone believes sexuality is a factor of environment if they also believe that homosexuals deserve equal rights?

 

Just sayin'~ One of the things about the gay rights movement that has always bothered me is many members don't leave room for slightly differing opinions. I don't think it matters whether you believe if homosexuality is environmental or genetic, as long as you believe in equal rights and treatment. That belief won't hurt anyone.

[Princess Artemis]

I don't think I've posted my opinion on the actual topic in this thread yet, but I shall because I'm grumpy and don't care if no one gets it.

 

If gay people feel as if they need the state to sanction their relationships, then by all means demand the privilege of state-sanctioned marriage the way straight people have.

 

Otherwise, they already have the same right to enter committed relationships with one another and call them whatever the hell they want as anyone else has. If there are places that criminalize that, then that certainly needs to change.

 

I guess my stance would be more along the lines of getting the state out of the legitimizing human relationships business. The state's blessing is not necessary for marriage to occur.

[Sadako]

Does it really matter if someone believes sexuality is a factor of environment if they also believe that homosexuals deserve equal rights?

 

Just sayin'~ One of the things about the gay rights movement that has always bothered me is many members don't leave room for slightly differing opinions. I don't think it matters whether you believe if homosexuality is environmental or genetic, as long as you believe in equal rights and treatment. That belief won't hurt anyone.

Okay, even though I'm clearly the one this is directed at, I actually sort of agree with you; I get that there really are people who think it's a choice. There are even people for whom it really is a choice because they're naturally bi and choose for whatever reason to only be with one or the other gender. That's all perfectly valid, and I'm certainly not going to say that there weren't ever any people who had trauma influence that decision for them. It is always personal and internal and I can't know what is inside any other person's mind.

 

However, it is not a choice for me, it never was, and so many other people who are queer say the exact same thing. It is almost always straight people who claim that trauma turns people gay, and they don't have any way of knowing what it's like inside a gay person's head.

 

I personally find it extremely insulting when people say that something that is unchangeable and tied inextricably into my brain and my nerves is actually just me being upset that I didn't get the flavor of ice cream I wanted when I was seven or something. Honestly, when people express that belief about me, it kind of does hurt me, because that's a complete stranger saying that they know my life and my soul and my body and brain better than I do, and that is impossible, and arrogant, and it spreads mistruth and misconception.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Sadako

[philpot123]

I don't think I've posted my opinion on the actual topic in this thread yet, but I shall because I'm grumpy and don't care if no one gets it.

 

If gay people feel as if they need the state to sanction their relationships, then by all means demand the privilege of state-sanctioned marriage the way straight people have.

 

Otherwise, they already have the same right to enter committed relationships with one another and call them whatever the hell they want as anyone else has. If there are places that criminalize that, then that certainly needs to change.

 

I guess my stance would be more along the lines of getting the state out of the legitimizing human relationships business. The state's blessing is not necessary for marriage to occur.

But for the legal benefits of marriage to apply the state has to approve it. That's the reason it's being fought for at all. I agree with you that the state shouldn't have a say in ANY marriages, but as it stands, in order for homosexual married couples to receive the rights and benefits heterosexual ones do, the marriage must be recognized by the state. They can call their relationship whatever they want, but it doesn't mean they can file joint tax returns or any of the other myriad of benefits.

[Walker]

Okay, even though I'm clearly the one this is directed at, I actually sort of agree with you; I get that there really are people who think it's a choice. There are even people for whom it really is a choice because they're naturally bi and choose for whatever reason to only be with one or the other gender. That's all perfectly valid, and I'm certainly not going to say that there weren't ever any people who had trauma influence that decision for them. It is always personal and internal and I can't know what is inside any other person's mind.

 

However, it is not a choice for me, it never was, and so many other people who are queer say the exact same thing. It is almost always straight people who claim that trauma turns people gay, and they don't have any way of knowing what it's like inside a gay person's head.

 

I personally find it extremely insulting when people say that something that is unchangeable and tied inextricably into my brain and my nerves is actually just me being upset that I didn't get the flavor of ice cream I wanted when I was seven or something. Honestly, when people express that belief about me, it kind of does hurt me, because that's a complete stranger saying that they know my life and my soul and my body and brain better than I do, and that is impossible, and arrogant, and it spreads mistruth and misconception.

Actually... it was aimed at the post two posts above me that relates to this post? o-o I skimmed over your post lol Didn't read it.

 

Anyhow, I'm one of a very small minority of queer individuals who believe that environment does play a big role for some (not all) cases. I've been attacked by people in the gay rights movement for that very belief, despite the fact I do believe in gay rights.

 

And I think it's wrong in that context. If you're using it as an excuse to discriminate, then yah, not cool.

[Princess Artemis]

But for the legal benefits of marriage to apply the state has to approve it. That's the reason it's being fought for at all. I agree with you that the state shouldn't have a say in ANY marriages, but as it stands, in order for homosexual married couples to receive the rights and benefits heterosexual ones do, the marriage must be recognized by the state. They can call their relationship whatever they want, but it doesn't mean they can file joint tax returns or any of the other myriad of benefits.

Filing jointly on taxes may have changed, but it used to be one actually got less back that way. Not much of a benefit.

 

If people want that, sure, I'm not against them trying to get it. Don't get me wrong, if more people want to sign up for state meddling, if they reeeeeally want that, that's fine by me. But like I said, I'd rather the state stop meddling.

[hazeh]

Why do straight people get to have things I can't have? :c

[Dhevix]

Why do straight people get to have things I can't have? :c

BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG AND UNNATURAL D<

 

You know; just like supermarkets, cosmetics, religion, television, domestic animals, books, tattoos, contraception, medication...

 

Oh wait sorry lol there are gay animals. There were probably gay dinosaurs, too.

Congratulations, you're more natural than organised religion and tinned goods!

[Princess Artemis]

Why do straight people get to have things I can't have? :c

You can have them. I just don't understand why you, or straight people even, want them, instead of getting the state to back off everyone and get out of the business of giving people licenses to marry.

 

It's kinda like asking why gay people can't have the shiny gilded cages straight people have :/ I mean, do you really want gilded cages? Or would you rather everyone have no cages at all?

Edited February 16, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Vhale]

You can have them. I just don't understand why you, or straight people even, want them, instead of getting the state to back off everyone and get out of the business of giving people licenses to marry.

 

It's kinda like asking why gay people can't have the shiny gilded cages straight people have :/ I mean, do you really want gilded cages? Or would you rather everyone have no cages at all?

I believe a lot of the problem stems from shared finances, medical issues and estates. For straight people, the laws are pretty clear cut. For gay couples, if you aren't related and your loved one is in the hospital, you can't even get in to visit in an ICU. You can't make medical choices. Because you are not legally related. You are just a stranger making claims that the other person is in no shape to back up. Marriage is a way to legally prove that someone is a lot more than just a stranger. If I recall correctly, part of the push-back against Governor Walker was that he was denying that Gay partners could visit their SO in ICU situations. (can't google it atm but perhaps someone else can provide)

 

For instance, what happens to the child of a gay couple if the biological parent dies in a wreck? Technically, the other is not related and not a parent in the eyes of the law.

[diannethegeek]

There are 1138 various benefits denied to same-sex partners because of the illegality of gay marriage, according to a 2004 GAO report. These are just federal benefits and don't take into account any state and local laws that might be in place.

 

Here's an overview: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-over...married-couples

 

And another: http://www.lush.com/shop/freedomtomarry/rightsdenied/

 

And the requisite Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1138_rights

 

And the link to the actual report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

[Princess Artemis]

I believe a lot of the problem stems from shared finances, medical issues and estates. For straight people, the laws are pretty clear cut. For gay couples, if you aren't related and your loved one is in the hospital, you can't even get in to visit in an ICU. You can't make medical choices. Because you are not legally related. You are just a stranger making claims that the other person is in no shape to back up. Marriage is a way to legally prove that someone is a lot more than just a stranger. If I recall correctly, part of the push-back against Governor Walker was that he was denying that Gay partners could visit their SO in ICU situations. (can't google it atm but perhaps someone else can provide)

 

For instance, what happens to the child of a gay couple if the biological parent dies in a wreck? Technically, the other is not related and not a parent in the eyes of the law.

Yes, I know. I think that needs to change.

 

I mean, why is it that someone has to be state-married in order to visit their spouse in an ICU? Why couldn't someone have other means of proving it? Why can't someone specify beforehand a specific someone for that role and know it will be ironclad respected by all? Because we let it, basically.

 

A whole bunch of those rights listed in those links sure do look like things that people ought to have regardless, but that the state has conveniently figured out a way to hornswoggle people into thinking they don't have without state permission. Right to inherit?! Seriously? The state thinks it can get in the way of a spouse leaving their things to one another just because they didn't sanction the marriage? It's worse than I thought.

 

Now I'm even grouchier.

[Vhale]

Well, I think you have to remember it's not just the right to have it. It's also the right for some con artist not to take it. I have some truly horrible relatives that would more than love to take every dime I have for drugs, cars, electronics etc. You can't make it too easy for just anyone to declare they have the right to things. The law needs a simple way to designate who can and can't do something.

 

Marriage is so old and universal it's all pretty much set up. It would probably take a LOT more work and money to get every state to set matching terms and conditions. Years of work. Or they could just let them marry and boom, it's done.

 

Seems like it would just be easier to let them marry. Instead we've got states whining about being in debt while setting up laws that will cost them millions in lawyer fees when they get challenged and declared unconstitutional.

[Kizzikins]

Regardless of how you may feel about government "infringing" upon people's rights to do whatever the hell they want, the fact of the matter is people are being denied basic civil rights. Simply saying we ought to dismantle the entire system doesn't solve the problem. Frankly, what option does that leave for people who want to marry? Even if I could legally get married, I don't want it recognized by any church or religious body because I'm an atheist. It seems disingenuous to just declare "I'm married!" Most importantly, we need some body to protect our rights. Eradicating state marriage doesn't fix the prejudice. That's what the government is supposed to be for. We can't put issues of civil rights in private hands. And what we need to do right now is work to change the state so it truly is protecting the rights of all citizens - us LGBTQ's included.

 

And on the topic of whether being gay genetic/environmental/a choice or whatever, I personally have to say I have been attracted to women over men for as long as I can remember, and it certainly wasn't a conscious choice. While I ultimately think the idea that it's largely environmental is rather silly, I do agree that it's ridiculous to be so divisive about that as long as the overall goal is the same: achieve equal rights. Not separate but equal, not second class citizenship, but equal rights. Starting with marriage equality.

[Princess Artemis]

Regardless of how you may feel about government "infringing" upon people's rights to do whatever the hell they want, the fact of the matter is people are being denied basic civil rights. Simply saying we ought to dismantle the entire system doesn't solve the problem. Frankly, what option does that leave for people who want to marry? Even if I could legally get married, I don't want it recognized by any church or religious body because I'm an atheist. It seems disingenuous to just declare "I'm married!" Most importantly, we need some body to protect our rights. Eradicating state marriage doesn't fix the prejudice. That's what the government is supposed to be for. We can't put issues of civil rights in private hands. And what we need to do right now is work to change the state so it truly is protecting the rights of all citizens - us LGBTQ's included.

How is it disingenuous to say you are married if that's what you are? I guess that's all down to how you define marriage, isn't it. For me, it's a commitment to another to be with them for the rest of their life as a spouse and a consummation. These are not things that can be legislated, these are not things that can be put into laws. If you believe it takes a piece of paper to be married, if you believe that the state is what makes marriages "real", then absolutely by all means fight for what you desire. Where did I say not to do this? I said I think there's a better way, but I certainly didn't say don't do it the way you think is right.

 

Why do you think that removing the system of licensing marriage entirely would not change anything? There would still be common law marriage, and common law could be updated to reflect same sex marriage. Not only that, but there would absolutely still be the commitment one human makes to another to be there for them for the rest of their lives. That is not a matter of allowing the state to decide who and who is not eligible. That would not have anything to do with religious institutions.

 

Honestly, the government cannot legislate prejudice away. The only way to do that is by changing minds. I agree, people are being denied basic rights. Straight people are too and lots of them don't even know it because they enjoy a privilege instead. I'd just rather everyone get the right, it makes more sense to me.

[Dhevix]

Frankly, what option does that leave for people who want to marry? Even if I could legally get married, I don't want it recognized by any church or religious body because I'm an atheist. It seems disingenuous to just declare "I'm married!"

I agree.

In that respect, arguably it's fairly discriminatory towards anyone who doesn't wish to subscribe to or support certain religious belief sets and groups.