Homosexual marriage the court does something right

[joe yang]

An intersting point on marriage has been made, if I may elaborate, with out adding fuel to the debate. Marriage is a social contract, which has evolved over time. Social conventions do change, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but social changes must grab the popular imagination. Wishing won't make it so. If same sex marriage contracts are to become part of the fabric of society, they must strike a popular note.

[chizikunbo]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
So, Jerry, you're a homophobe and a bigot.
To be consistent, you must also oppose interracial marriage, which makes you a racist.
If not, why not? Why view racism as a greater evil than homophobia?
There is no rational explanation. There is, however, an irrational one: namely, that you have yet internalised the fact that all people are equal, regardless of gender, skin colour, or sexual orientation.
Forty years ago, segregation was legal and Governor George Wallace of Alabama said that to oppose such racism was unacceptable.
How is your homophobia any different?

Perfect wording

[Jerry Johnson]

To all my critics, which I don't take seriously that it becomes personal and we lose sight of the thread, opinions are opinions and this is a discussion board and I am happy to hear and respect everyone's arguments. - Tony I don't expect any less from your response. I have been accused of being worse, here, by those less intelligent then yourself. In fact all those who disagree with my post are people that are well read and intelligent people so far, and I respect that.


Now California has stop homosexual marriages such as those illegally preformed in San Francisco. Again, good move. Now
WISCONSIN SENATE PASSES AMENDMENT TO BAN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE . I am all for that. I hope California will follow suit. I apology to all the emotionally upset homosexuals wanting to marry as heterosexuals. But, hey folks, marriage is a heterosexual thing. Just because it isn't perfect, doesn't me we lose ownership of it.

Marriage was set up and has been established with guidelines, for some they feel such guidelines are exclusive, prejudice and discriminatory, and they are right and it all focuses on heterosexuals. Why until now have homosexuals want to partake in a heterosexual institution that according to many is trite, useless, a shame, a prison sentence, etc. and/or falling apart? Are homosexuals going to make it any better? Do they know something we heterosexual married couples don’t?

On an daily level, if homosexual marriage is mainstream acceptable, I don't want people thinking I am homosexual because my spouse’s name is Pat- short for Patrice, and I to have to straighten it out constantly, with banks, business, tax forms, more junk mail ( business catering to homosexuals), and God knows what else.

On a political level, I don't want to pay more taxes for more programs and services to people who can already get them, and are wasting tax payers money. To my critics, if marriage isn't so important and it is just a piece of paper , then why (is a part of) the homosexual community trying so hard to get a marriage for them legal?

If the Christian religion rejects homosexual marriage they have the right. No one should force that religion to change. Doesn't Christianity have a right to reject homosexual marriages under freedom of religion? If Christians want to protest it, I am with them because as I see it, they are exercising freedom of religion and speech. They are struggling to hold on to a tradition and do not want it corrupted. Yet, this issue of homosexual marriage is seen as a threat to freedom of religion.

I don't know why homosexuals don't start their own religion and have that institution recognize homosexual unions, so to fit their needs and their culture rather then taking and distorting heterosexual marriage. Which if you think about it, heterosexual marriage-union of man and woman- is in stark contrast to homosexual culture. I remember in the 60's-80’s and reading about homosexual culture and politics, through the lives of some famous and not so famous people, that homosexual culture wanted nothing to do with the mainstream culture what so ever! They mocked it. They disliked it because heterosexual marriage and what it stood for went against homosexual culture. So why the change in attitude, and need for marriage? Homosexuals are far more accepted in society then in the past. A huge victory for homosexuals, Texas ( being in the South ) took the sodomy laws off the books! Other states did it as well. Homosexual men, are free to …….. without prosecution. Look at employment laws, that really have bent over backward to protect homosexuals. I can't ask a person if he or she is homosexual if I want to keep my job. Yet, I can ask if they are heterosexual, maybe. I just don’t get it.

Heterosexuals started their institution of marriage thousands of years ago in many forms, so why can't homosexuals start their own thing, why do they require a heterosexual marriage? Heck, homosexual culture really is anti-heterosexual culture. So why the tears and anger when homosexuals are refused from a heterosexual institution? Because we are in the ME FIRST, MYSELF ONLY, and WHAT I NOW ONLY WANT MATTERS, what I call the spoiled brat tantrum generation.

Back to Wisconsin, I think they are smart enough to recognize they don't want to deal with a caustic, chaotic and messy situation that will burned their public and governmental resources by passing the amendment. They beat a "cheeseburger Bob" case. I hope more states recognize there are important issues to put resources into then homosexual marriage of tiny minority of people.

[Sunndew]

What I really think homosexuals want is legal equality. They want the same legal options that are given to you and I. They want to be able to have their partner on their insurance, they want to have their partner have leagal rights to medical information if the other is in the hospital. They want the right to file as married on taxes and get the same tax break that others get. Its really not about a piece of paper.

Homosexuals have hopes and dreams. They want the house with the white picket fence and kids playing in the yard. They want to take vacations with their familes and live a happy life. They have the same hopes and dreams as everybody else. Why should they be denied those hopes and dreams because they are not what most call a "normal" couple?

Do you really think that most homosexuals CHOOSE to be homosexual? Do you really think that they can be cured? I for on dont think this. I think that it is the way they are born and to be other than what they are is not "natural".

We do not tell people that are disabled that they can't marry. We don't tell people that are different races that they can not marry. We don't tell Yankee's that they can't marry Southerners. We dont tell 20 year olds that they cant marry 90 year old's. We might personally find some of these things wrong but just because we might find it wrong doesn't mean that they can't do it. What is the different with same sex getting married? Just because some find it wrong, why should we be able to tell them no?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[SeventhSentinel]

Who cares? Not I. For either side of the arguement (I wanna be against both sides ) With so much out there in the world, why do I have to waste attention span seeing it on tv commercials, specials, news blah blah blah. I'm Catholic (don't care what anyone says so don't waste thread space ripping on it) but I really couldn't give more of crap about gays getting married. Go ahead let them if they want. It should be their rights as citizens of the US. The founders of this country were for the most part VERY religious and thus the constitution, bill of rights, etc. was built by people with a deep foundation in the bible. So it's natural that for that time they would have written what they knew. However one of the key points of America is Freedom so why not give gays the freedom to marry. If your religion is against it then don't worry, they won't be getting married in your churches. And if they are and you got a problem with that then take it up with your church. Anyway put something better on tv, the paper, magazines..

[Jerry Johnson]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
So, Jerry, you're a homophobe and a bigot.
To be consistent, you must also oppose interracial marriage, which makes you a racist.
If not, why not? Why view racism as a greater evil than homophobia?
There is no rational explanation. There is, however, an irrational one: namely, that you have yet internalised the fact that all people are equal, regardless of gender, skin colour, or sexual orientation.
Forty years ago, segregation was legal and Governor George Wallace of Alabama said that to oppose such racism was unacceptable.
How is your homophobia any different?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony, on the bigot and homophob part, you may be right, and I should have the same equal rights and treatment as anyone else.

Interracial marriage, I love this one. Classic hyperbole in this case, a great sound bite attack as political rhetoric. Yet Tony I am married to a woman of another race and culture vastly different then my own. In fact, I live in a culture that attempted geneocide on my ethnic background, and forced their culture upon my forefathers. So therefore, I have a reason to be rasicst don't I? I am also in an interraical marriage. Yet, your points have nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality has nothing to do with race. It has to do with sexual preferance and the demands of a part of the homosexual culture to impose it's will on others.

By the way not all people are equal that is fallacy, a sound bite for those who really don't want to deal with real social issues. See, Tony have you ever been to Montana on an "Indian reservation"? Have you been to Montana and heard non-Indian people speak about reservations and how the Indian people are nothing but worthless drunken trash that don't respect what the government gives them? Do you know what kind of problems Indians have to deal with in terms of culture, education and employment. When you spoke of racism you only looked at a what is mainstream, you took a narrow and shallow view and scope of racism. Why did you use George McGovern as an example? Why not how the US government is still neglecting the education of Indians children. Or how bills died in the senate and the house, that would help Indians start up legitimate businesses then and now. Or how the Government took mineral rights from Indians. NO, you didn't site that.

Now you will tell them that I am full of it, because many tribes are running casinos today. Now casinos got started on Indian land only because they where on Indian reservations where Indians governed. When casinos got profitable many states decided they where going to try and stop Indian tribes from starting up casinos and shut the established ones down, in some cases and states where successful. Because gambling is so profitable, many tribes started to have a voice, and many didn't like that. Why gambling because the selling of culture to tourist ( the only business we where allowed ) didn't cut it. It didn't pull us out of poverty, so was out of poverty stricken tribes decided to run casinos. Something harder for the government and racists to take away from us. Even so some states still tried to take the Casinos away because they were so profitable.

Remember the issue with Marge Shott (sp) and other owners of sports teams who wouldn't change their names. A request made by the people who were almost wiped off the face of the earth. A request to protect our culture. A request to protect our dignity. A simple request of respect that went unheeded and mocked. We were laughed at because we just wanted something simple as respect. It was refused bitterly and resentfully, and a cause for humiliation. We still hear racists terms used by people for us “Indians” and they are said without a thought. God for bid if I use the “N” word here or in public. But others can stereotype us, humiliate us daily. Gee...Tony you really need to brush up on your racism.

Tony for your world of black and white equality, where everything is perfect, look again. Homosexuals marriage isn't an issue of racism, it is about cultural and social privilege. If heterosexuals reject the request they shouldn't be called racist and bigots. Don't heterosexuals deserve respect for their institutions, and have a voice in their own institution? Orwell is right again.

BTW, if I am against murder, does that make me a homocidephoic?

[nicojo]

I see all your points and I raise you one:

Since the marriage between marriage and the state is a relatively recent one, from Napoleon, why not let this particular relationship divorce? Let the religious traditions "own" marriage entirely so they can choose what fits with their doctrines. If one is religious at all, I'd like to think that one is serious about it, so gay couples that really are "religious" can go ahead and find a tradition that will accept them, like certain episcopalian churches or what have you. The sanctity of the institution will be upheld and decided by the religious traditions that follow it.

On the state side, let us use civil unions entirely in taxing and whatnot, to fulfill all the beauracratic functions it now does making it an entirely secular institution with no moral or religious ties at all. Complete equality based on two people, whatever gender, who want to screw each other for life and raise a stable family, get tax breaks, you know, all the stuff I can't wait for. State governments (here used since this is currently a hot American topic) will recognize all civil unions correctly performed by a justice, but may decide their own recognition of religious marriage.

It seems the problem here is one of state trying to miserably legislate morality and the church trying to dictate human rights of those not under its purview. By separating the spheres of religion and government more clearly, "marriage" will be divorced from a rights issue, from legal entanglements, from marriages of convenience or money-grubbing which in my mind along with the high divorce rate desacralize marriage more than letting people who take it more seriously get it. As far as raising kids, well there is something to the idea that kids turn out pretty good if they have two parents and this is something that can be accomplished either with a civil union, a holy marriage, or both if that's what you want.

Well, I just thought of this last night after a discussion with my gf of five years, so what do you think?

[chizikunbo]

Originally posted by ulvulv
Ban marriage at all.
It is an outdated social contract, the people on the outside want to get in, those in want to get out. The main contribution of this utterly archaic institution today, is to feed a generation of divorce-lawyers. It is not a sacred bond of lifelong love duty and commitment anymore, just a temporary financial contract, a stone dead tradition.
The money saved would add up to billions.

If it is a problem I have to agree "ban marrige all together" I mean this is going to show up quite often from now on,(i beleve anyway)
so let homosexual marrige happen now or later either way it will have the same end game(result), it will eventually be legal. So get over it!
(No offense intended)

[CMM]

Mr. Johnson, don't several of your points in re: the abject discrimination that Native Americans face(d) actually support the concept of gay marriage? I don't follow how citing the offenses of the American government/people/whatever against the Native Americans promotes the denial of rights and legal protections to other minority groups.

To pick up on a specific point that you mentioned, I maintain that the example of interracial marriage is a valid contextual argument for those in favor of gay marriage to use to bolster their position. It's recent (within living memory), it dealt with a minority population that was actively discriminated against, and it was changed by overwhelming social pressure. I note that you discard this argument, but don't give a reason why. Why is this an invalid comparison?

[keithpenner]

Originally posted by Jerry Johnson


But, hey folks, marriage is a heterosexual thing.

No, not really. Or at least, it should not be limited in this way.

Marriage was set up and has been established with guidelines, for some they feel such guidelines are exclusive, prejudice and discriminatory, and they are right and it all focuses on heterosexuals. Why until now have homosexuals want to partake in a heterosexual institution that according to many is trite, useless, a shame, a prison sentence, etc. and/or falling apart? Are homosexuals going to make it any better? Do they know something we heterosexual married couples don’t?

The guidelines are discriminatory, and that is wrong. Period.

If I may be so presumptuous as to speak for an entire group, homosexuals want to take part in marriage becuase many DO NOT feel that it is trite, etc. Also, there are legal benefits to being married, and it is unfair to withhold those benefits.

On an daily level, if homosexual marriage is mainstream acceptable, I don't want people thinking I am homosexual because my spouse’s name is Pat- short for Patrice, and I to have to straighten it out constantly, with banks, business, tax forms, more junk mail ( business catering to homosexuals), and God knows what else.

So you want to discriminate against people in order to cut down on the amount of junk mail you receive? That is perhaps the most shallow argument I have ever heard on any subject anywhere.

On a political level, I don't want to pay more taxes for more programs and services to people who can already get them, and are wasting tax payers money. To my critics, if marriage isn't so important and it is just a piece of paper , then why (is a part of) the homosexual community trying so hard to get a marriage for them legal?

If the people can already get the services as you allege, then you won't have to pay more taxes now, will you? It is not all about taxes though. What about visitation rights in the hospital? Granting this would cost you a grand total of nothing, in any conceivable mannner. Regarding the importance of marriage, nobody is saying that it is not important. People are saying that it IS important, and they want to participate with the person that they love.

If the Christian religion rejects homosexual marriage they have the right. No one should force that religion to change. Doesn't Christianity have a right to reject homosexual marriages under freedom of religion? If Christians want to protest it, I am with them because as I see it, they are exercising freedom of religion and speech. They are struggling to hold on to a tradition and do not want it corrupted. Yet, this issue of homosexual marriage is seen as a threat to freedom of religion.

Agreed. Christians, Moslems, Taoists, whoever can protest on religious grounds if they like. They do not have to marry anybody in any form in their religion if they do not have to. We are talking CIVIL union here, not religious.

I don't know why homosexuals don't start their own religion and have that institution recognize homosexual unions, so to fit their needs and their culture rather then taking and distorting heterosexual marriage.

Why? Or, who cares? The fight is not over having a religious ceremony, the fight is about having the civil protections offered by marriage. No religion needs to change one iota. The secular state should act in a non-discriminatory manner to meet the needs of its members.

Which if you think about it, heterosexual marriage-union of man and woman- is in stark contrast to homosexual culture. I remember in the 60's-80’s and reading about homosexual culture and politics, through the lives of some famous and not so famous people, that homosexual culture wanted nothing to do with the mainstream culture what so ever! They mocked it. They disliked it because heterosexual marriage and what it stood for went against homosexual culture. So why the change in attitude, and need for marriage? Homosexuals are far more accepted in society then in the past. A huge victory for homosexuals, Texas ( being in the South ) took the sodomy laws off the books! Other states did it as well. Homosexual men, are free to …….. without prosecution.

You are looking at only one segment of homosexual culture. If you were fair, you would admit that many hetero people feel the same way about marriage. They don't want to do it. Other homosexuals do want to get married. Yet one of your reasons against it is that you read that some homosexual somewhere in the 70's thought that marriage was a bad idea, so in your opinion no homosexual anywhere should get married?

Look up sodomy some time. The word encompasses sexual behavior that many people, including heterosexuals, perform.


Look at employment laws, that really have bent over backward to protect homosexuals. I can't ask a person if he or she is homosexual if I want to keep my job. Yet, I can ask if they are heterosexual, maybe. I just don’t get it.

Actually, you cannot ask either in the course of an interview. Day to day conversation is another matter. But you talk about employment laws prohibiting discrimination like they are bad things.

Heterosexuals started their institution of marriage thousands of years ago in many forms, so why can't homosexuals start their own thing, why do they require a heterosexual marriage?

They don't. They require a civil union to have the same rights as a heterosexual, and you are against that.

Heck, homosexual culture really is anti-heterosexual culture. So why the tears and anger when homosexuals are refused from a heterosexual institution? Because we are in the ME FIRST, MYSELF ONLY, and WHAT I NOW ONLY WANT MATTERS, what I call the spoiled brat tantrum generation.

Again with the homosexual culture slurs, with no substantiation. I know lots of homosexuals. They have the same culture as you or I. They like martial arts, reruns of NYPD Blue, the Superbowl and going someplace tropical in the winter. Are there promiscuous homosexuals? Sure. But I know a few heterosexuals who have had wild and crazy youths, middle ages, or randy senior home lives as well.

Back to Wisconsin, I think they are smart enough to recognize they don't want to deal with a caustic, chaotic and messy situation that will burned their public and governmental resources by passing the amendment. They beat a "cheeseburger Bob" case. I hope more states recognize there are important issues to put resources into then homosexual marriage of tiny minority of people.

Or, they could have simply abided by the constitution, and forbidden discrimination of any type. But they did not. Wisconsin, and probably every other state, will need to pay some legal bills to defend discrimination now.

[Shitoryu Dude]

All marriages are civil unions. Religious ceremonies are worthless without the appropriate civil paperwork. You may, if you choose, get married in a church and the priest or whatever will act as a proxy for the government and ensure that the license is filled out properly. But no paperwork and all you have is a ritual that has no legal weight. IE - all the weddings in the world don't make you a legal couple, but a marriage license does.

Nor do you need the church's OK to get a divorce either - we do not live in a theocracy.

[Jerry Johnson]

Originally posted by Sunndew
What I really think homosexuals want is legal equality. They want the same legal options that are given to you and I. They want to be able to have their partner on their insurance, they want to have their partner have leagal rights to medical information if the other is in the hospital. They want the right to file as married on taxes and get the same tax break that others get. Its really not about a piece of paper.

Per the insurance thing, many companies already insure domestic partners.

Medical info: I tell ya, I don't have access to my brother's medical information. Let's not for get the medical privacy act is largely do in part to the circumstances of homosexuals. This is, I must, say a benefit to society.

Originally posted by Sunndew
Homosexuals have hopes and dreams. They want the house with the white picket fence and kids playing in the yard. They want to take vacations with their families and live a happy life. They have the same hopes and dreams as everybody else. Why should they be denied those hopes and dreams because they are not what most call a "normal" couple?

Again, not all homosexual embrace marriage. Secondly, your describing white middle class suburbia of the 50s. Most of us native Americans, the poor, immigrants, etc. don't get that. What is normal. We are not talking what is or isn't normalcy are we? We are talking about homosexuals taking part by law in an institute of heterosexual culture. We are not talking about woman getting equal pay as men for the same job.

Originally posted by Sunndew
Do you really think that most homosexuals CHOOSE to be homosexual? Do you really think that they can be cured? I for on dont think this. I think that it is the way they are born and to be other than what they are is not "natural".

Do you really think heterosexuals CHOOSE to be heterosexual. We are born that way. We can't help it. Do you think we can be "cured?" And to accept some homosexuals as heterosexuals is not "natural." Heck, homosexuals are genetically anatomically design the same as heterosexuals, all humans for that matter overall despite the race,creed or color. It's not a question of who came first the homosexual or the heterosexual. It is a matter of the right for an institution to keep it's culture ( and of course the real issue of tax payers dollars squandered on this issue), and not be forced to change on the legal demands of another culture's minority group.

We do not tell people that are disabled that they can't marry. We don't tell people that are different races that they can not marry. We don't tell Yankee's that they can't marry Southerners. We dont tell 20 year olds that they cant marry 90 year old's. We might personally find some of these things wrong but just because we might find it wrong doesn't mean that they can't do it. What is the different with same sex getting married? Just because some find it wrong, why should we be able to tell them no?

Yes, to all the above. We do. Look into it. Starting with people with Down Syndrome. Gee...I guess to some handicap is an exclusive word. For the rest, many Southern do resent those "damn Yankees" and some cultures have marital restrictions. In terms of legal restrictions, we tell people at what age they can marry, and who they can and can't. Drawing a blank.....you can't marry your sibling or birth parent. You can't marry more then one wife. Nor, an animal. In some states there are still laws on the books who you can and can't marry racially. And the list goes on and it does include homosexuals.

Originally posted by Sunndew
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Take a better look at the term “ALL Men are created equal" meant upon it’s inception, especially with the continued acts of genocide and slavery going on at that time. And the conditions and place of woman. I don’t think it applied to homosexual marriage either as it wasn’t an issue then. Upon interpretation as you state, pedophiles should not be criminals. Study Plato's republic again, and the history of social contract too it will help. I also suggest the Symposisum as well.

[keithpenner]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jerry Johnson
Per the insurance thing, many companies already insure domestic partners.

Medical info: I tell ya, I don't have access to my brother's medical information. Let's not for get the medical privacy act is largely do in part to the circumstances of homosexuals. This is, I must, say a benefit to society.

Many insurance companies and employers do not insure domestic partners. Your brother is not your spouse. Spouses DO have access to one another's medical info, and can make decisions. You are avoiding the point.



Again, not all homosexual embrace marriage.

Again, some do.


It is a matter of the right for an institution to keep it's culture, and not be forced to change on the legal demands of another culture's minority group.

Not if it discriminates. Then that culture does not have the right to continue an institution.

[Jerry Johnson]

.

Originally posted by CMM
Mr. Johnson, don't several of your points in re: the abject discrimination that Native Americans face(d) actually support the concept of gay marriage? I don't follow how citing the offenses of the American government/people/whatever against the Native Americans promotes the denial of rights and legal protections to other minority groups.

To pick up on a specific point that you mentioned, I maintain that the example of interracial marriage is a valid contextual argument for those in favor of gay marriage to use to bolster their position. It's recent (within living memory), it dealt with a minority population that was actively discriminated against, and it was changed by overwhelming social pressure. I note that you discard this argument, but don't give a reason why. Why is this an invalid comparison?

No I don't because homosexuality isn't a race. My reference to my background was a response to Tony's point of view. It wasn't a point about homosexual marriage, rather how he looks at things to fit his opinion. He reduced racism only to the experiences of Black Americans and correlated it with homosexuals. Homosexuals are not a race. We see homosexuality in races.

I discard that argument, due to limited time to properly compose and cite resources, therefore, I must settle with it being my opinion. To further my opinion, I feel homosexuality is a sub-culture, just as any subculture, and not a race, not a people. How one becomes homosexual no ones knows other then those how are. From my experiences and understanding some people are dis-satisfied or dislike ( for what ever reason ) opposite sex relationships and sexual encounters, or never desired opposite sex relationships or sexual encounters. Homosexuality has yet to have definite and identifiable traits, like those of like skin color, or other phenotype genetic identifiers like there are with race. Hard science hasn’t had the Fat Lady sing as the jury is still out, to really prove or not prove anything when it comes to explaining homosexual behavior. It is still a gray area. Where as heterosexuality has better empirical evidence of why people are heterosexual.

Heterosexuality like homosexuality isn’t a race. I don't see why people insist homosexuality is like a race and is afforded such rights as those of race. Or why it is even compared to the issues of race when it is a matter of behavior. Heterosexuality isn't spoken of as a race and hence afforded the same rights and privileges when it comes to discrimination as a race. I have yet to know anyone who can use in defense of getting what they want on the grounds of heterosexual discrimination. The comparison of homosexuality to race is, piggy backing of sorts, one issue upon the other used to get an difficult or unpopular issue passed or in this case publicly accepted. A political strategy I think Tony very wittingly was arguing in his post.

Hope that cleared things up.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Homosexuality isn't a race, but it is a statistically predicatable part of humanity. 2% - well within the window of being a part of the NORMAL distribution. In other words, being gay is no different than having blue eyes, male pattern baldness, or never having children (20%) - none of which are presented as reasons for not being able to get married.

All arguments against homosexuality are based on religion and have no foundation in civil law.