The Gay Marriage Question Thread

[nomix]

Perhaps. But I've always believed that the death penalty is even worse than a mob beating someone to a bloody pulp and killing them for being naughty, though.

 

[Dr_Grip]

Perhaps. But I've always believed that the death penalty is even worse than a mob beating someone to a bloody pulp and killing them for being naughty, though.

I don't know if I can agree to this sentiment. I think the death penalty, in a society with a more-or-less working court system is a morally bad law, but it is still something that is administered according to certain rules the society as represented by their lawmakers has agreed upon.

A mob beating someone to a pulp because he or she had a partner of the wrong sex or age/is a witch/is jewish/is a muslim/is a black camerawoman at the RNC on the other hand is random and more likely than not based on prejudice and hatred.

Both the death penalty and vigilante justice are wrong. But at least the death penalty is not based on personal opinion and prejudice (statistics about blacks more likely to be sentenced to death than whites in the US notwithstanding).

 

[nomix]

A mob can't be trusted. A mob can go both ways. What a mob does doesn't indite a whole society by its actions. A mob is unpredictable and therefore isn't symbolic of a full society.

A court of law is. Death penalty is a court of law being convened, then 12 men and women dressing in their best clothes and deciding someone should die. In all its self rightousness, I think it's ten times more morally reprehensible.

 

[MWF]

Since the thread has kind of derailed I'll chuck in my two cents.

I've gone from being a typically lefty student to much more of a conservative (small c) libertarian in my views. As such I now feel that there is perhaps a case for the death penalty for certain crimes on the basis that with modern forensics it is possible for cases to be proven beyond any doubt and there are certain people you don't ever want to release because of a very high probability they will reoffend, typically rape, child abuse/killing and first degree murder.

And they can stick their full human rights up their arses - certain of those got waived the moment they did what they did. You come to live in this country and then murder or rape one of our citizens? Then if we can't execute you for it because of our current laws then we sure as hell will deport you back to the regime you fled and bollocks to your right to a family life or threat of torture, imprisonment or execution when you get of the place at the other end. You made that choice now live with it.

 

[Dr_Grip]

The DP discussion continues here.

 

[Interrobang]

Time to open this can of worms here I reckon. [...]

Well, so far FG has indeed proven that we are a tolerant bunch, at least in theory.

Am I for gay marriage to be legal and have the same status as marriages as between heterosexuals? Yes.

 

[That American Girl]

About 15 years ago, my ex father in laws partner died after a long illness, (not AIDS) and while Russel was not entitled to any of his life insurance or was legally allowed to keep any of Rob's property, he WAS entitled to 100% of the hospital and hospice bills.

All while Robs family who had dis-owned him years before swooped in and legally took everything not nailed down, including his car, all the furniture in the house (while the funeral was going on), his half of the bank account (they took all but $5 actually) and life insurance.

And didn't have to be liable for any of the bills that Russel ended up with.

There was a will, but in the State of Ohio at the time, since they were a gay couple, the family was able to just walk away with everything. With the hospital bills and such and with Russel taking so much time off work to care for him, he didn't have the money or will to hire a lawyer.

Bastards didn't even send flowers to the funeral.

 

[Cobol74]

Needed a smart lawyer for the will who would have locked them out no problem I would guess.

Anyhow should not have told them he'd died until after the will has gone through probate, as you say that they were not close or even in-touch they would not have minded.

How do people take money out of a current account without an authorisation from the deceased's executor anyway? Would not be allowed here that is for sure and the bank would not allow it, unless this was done fraudulently. Does the State have a special bit in their law that suspend all other laws just because someone is living with someone of the same sex - they may not even be gay - damn stupid.

Something very wrong in the state of Denmark. ? (It's a [mis]quote, and Denmark is a very well run country).

 

[maxtortheone]

 

[nomix]

About 15 years ago, my ex father in laws partner died after a long illness, (not AIDS) and while Russel was not entitled to any of his life insurance or was legally allowed to keep any of Rob's property, he WAS entitled to 100% of the hospital and hospice bills.

All while Robs family who had dis-owned him years before swooped in and legally took everything not nailed down, including his car, all the furniture in the house (while the funeral was going on), his half of the bank account (they took all but $5 actually) and life insurance.

And didn't have to be liable for any of the bills that Russel ended up with.

There was a will, but in the State of Ohio at the time, since they were a gay couple, the family was able to just walk away with everything. With the hospital bills and such and with Russel taking so much time off work to care for him, he didn't have the money or will to hire a lawyer.

Bastards didn't even send flowers to the funeral.

Once in a while, you read a story that breaks your heart. It's good to realise, from time to time, how real people are affected by the ideas and debate. I put it to anyone bashing gays to listen to that story and not feel great shame.

T-shirts?

 

[Initial_B]

The Catholic in me should be against this with every fiber of my being, like my mother is now.

But seeing how I never stepped foot in a church, much less looked at a Bible, the logical person in me can't find a good reason to be oppose of this. There are more straight people who disrespect the sanctity of marriage on damn near a daily basis.

I had a cousin who was married by the church and divorced 2 months later when she hooked up with her husband's best friend who was also his best man at their wedding. And here she is walking around with no remorse. And this doesn't bother any of these close-minded fools as much as gay marriage does.

To be fair, let the state reconize gay marriges and let the church keep their opinions to themselves. No one's marriage should ever affect me...not even my own parents.

 

[SirEdward]

I somehow think it's misleading to call them "gay marriages", and I think most of the problems arise from the lexical question.

We idealize the term "marriage" as a somewhat sacred union between a man and a woman. Actually, it's only the social aknowledgement of the bond tying two people together (and has been in the past, or is today in several countries, a simple social pact to assure alliances between families, or a way to get a VISA into a foreign society). The sacred part is only from a religious point of view. But, as we know, religion and State should be two different matters. If religions want to keep what they call marriage as a union only between male and female, then there is no problem. No gay people will ever be allowed to get married in a church in front of a priest. No problem. But as for stipulating a social contract of mutual assistance and care, and the formation of a -family- (at least two people who share most of their life and properties, with mutual rights and duties), I can't see any civil obstacle in having two people of the same gender signing such a contract. If religious people don't want it to be called "marriage", let's call it something else. What is the problem? Religious bonds and civil pacts are two different things.

 

[Red_Bull]

Well I'm just going to say I have no strong feelings either way tbh. I probably lean towards the 'nothing wrong with it' camp but I don't really care, it doesn't hurt me.

 

[nomix]

It is when you look upon the world and see wrong and declare it to be wrong, wether it reaches you or not, it is then you can look yourself in the mirror and say "I believe in freedom".

 

[MWF]

I somehow think it's misleading to call them "gay marriages", and I think most of the problems arise from the lexical question.

We idealize the term "marriage" as a somewhat sacred union between a man and a woman. Actually, it's only the social aknowledgement of the bond tying two people together (and has been in the past, or is today in several countries, a simple social pact to assure alliances between families, or a way to get a VISA into a foreign society). The sacred part is only from a religious point of view. But, as we know, religion and State should be two different matters. If religions want to keep what they call marriage as a union only between male and female, then there is no problem. No gay people will ever be allowed to get married in a church in front of a priest. No problem. But as for stipulating a social contract of mutual assistance and care, and the formation of a -family- (at least two people who share most of their life and properties, with mutual rights and duties), I can't see any civil obstacle in having two people of the same gender signing such a contract. If religious people don't want it to be called "marriage", let's call it something else. What is the problem? Religious bonds and civil pacts are two different things.

The thing is we already have legal same-sex civil unions in the UK but the debate here is as to whether the various churches should be allowing same sex couples to marry in the traditional sense.

 

[captain_70s]

The thing is we already have legal same-sex civil unions in the UK but the debate here is as to whether the various churches should be allowing same sex couples to marry in the traditional sense.

Hence why I don't see why they are so desperate for the right to do so in the UK.
A civil partnership in this country is essentially a marriage without the name or, more importantly, the religious attachment a "traditional" marriage offers. For all intents and purposes you are "married".

It comes across as almost looking for a problem, the majority of religions are against same sex couples*, why affiliate yourself with them at all? It isn't inequality if an alternative is offered. It'd be like me saying "I want to be a Jew but I really like bacon. I want the Jewish religion to change so I can eat my pork", if the rules of religion change by the choice of people what is the point in having them**?!



The problem lies in countries where you either cannot be joined in any form of partnership as a same sex couple or where it doesn't hold the same rights as a traditional marriage.


*Sort of, perhaps, kind of. Nobody REALLY knows as most religions are based on a clusterfuck of conflicting information.
**I don't actually think they have a point to begin with, the sooner they all bugger off the sooner I can get my harem. But that's just, like, my opinion man...

 

[nomix]

You don't? It's because they're being told by the law that they are different. The law tells them that their union is not valued at the same level as that of a man and a woman. And you know what? I'm willing to bet all the beer in my fridge against all the beer in your fridge that most people affected by the law will feel like the value of their union is lower than that of a marriage.

Don't think of this as a question of wether two men should be able to get married. Think of it as a question of wether a man from Sweden should be able to get married to a woman from Luisiana. Because it is, in essense, the same. That does not go so far as to say that a man should have the right to marry his pillow or a woman to marry her handbag.

It's wrong. The law as it stands causes hurt. Changing it will not cause that same active level of hurt. Sure some people will be hurt and angry about it. They were so about interracial marriages as well. Or marrying outside your class. Which might resonate more with someone from Great Britian.

 

[captain_70s]

You don't? It's because they're being told by the law that they are different. The law tells them that their union is not valued at the same level as that of a man and a woman. And you know what? I'm willing to bet all the beer in my fridge against all the beer in your fridge that most people affected by the law will feel like the value of their union is lower than that of a marriage.

It was my knowledge that the civil partnership and a non-religious (civil) marriage had the same standing under UK law. A marriage under religion is another matter, then it is up to whatever religious body you want to get married within. Although (I may be wrong) I also thought a religious marriage has the same standing in law.
If that is so then the only problem is the perception, people (usually the highly religious and the elderly, I find) are going to see same sex marriage as "wrong" and "unworthy". That's entirely their opinion, they can think what they like.

Personally I'm not religious, so I wouldn't have a religious based marriage in a church with a priest and organist and top hats etc. For the majority of people it is merely a sign of commitment and a few legal standings which are identical across the board as far as I know.


As far as the UK class system goes there are only two really. The rich and the not-rich, same as with any other country, the class system of old is largely dead.

 

[SirEdward]

The thing is we already have legal same-sex civil unions in the UK but the debate here is as to whether the various churches should be allowing same sex couples to marry in the traditional sense.

Oh, that's just my general ignorance. Here, same-sex marriage is not available, so things are more complicated.

As to what every church thinks... well, as long as they don't interfere with civil law (ok, that's funny...), they have the right to allow or disallow whatever kind of marriage among thier ranks. If a person disagree with his own church, that's his problem. Provided they don't try to impose their choice to everyone else.

What happens here is that civil marriage is a photocopy of the religious one, except for the religious attachments. So same-sex civil unions would be a nice step forward. But they still aren't there.

 

[jmsprovan]

It was my knowledge that the civil partnership and a non-religious (civil) marriage had the same standing under UK law. A marriage under religion is another matter, then it is up to whatever religious body you want to get married within. Although (I may be wrong) I also thought a religious marriage has the same standing in law.
If that is so then the only problem is the perception, people (usually the highly religious and the elderly, I find) are going to see same sex marriage as "wrong" and "unworthy". That's entirely their opinion, they can think what they like.

Personally I'm not religious, so I wouldn't have a religious based marriage in a church with a priest and organist and top hats etc. For the majority of people it is merely a sign of commitment and a few legal standings which are identical across the board as far as I know.

Civil unions aren't exactly the same there are a few examples; like for instance those in a civil union can't be "divorced" for adultery, also because the term "Marriage" isn't used then other countries with laws which specify "marriage" don't have to honour them. On the other side heterosexual couples cannot have a civil union although they might want to.

Even if they normalised everything but the name it would still wouldn't be good enough. Its like saying Gays have to sit at the back of the bus, but it doesn't matter because they are on the bus. Its still discriminatory.