A question on the definition of "gay marriage"

[Armakus]

Okay, you're going to read the title and wonder "The hell so hard to understand?"

Well, to be honest, it just wasn't easy to phrase the whole question in the title. So... here it is! Long post below. I know, it sucks. If you plan on skimming the first tidbit and saying "TL;DR", I reccomend you don't.

I'm a gay male. 19 years old, to be 20 in a few months. When asked how long I've known I was gay, I respond with "I don't know. When did you know you were straight". I am not currently in any sort of long-term relationship. But, that's enough about me, I had a question regarding the "right" to marry.

The way I see it, I could care less if my partner and I could have the actual... I guess, "title" of marriage. Honestly, if the government was able to just see the two of us and give us the exact same rights as a married couple, what's the difference? I don't need a piece of paper that says "married" to know I'm with the person I love. I'd just like a piece of paper that says something along the lines of "Two dudes that get jiggy with it, live with each other, love each other, and plan on living with each other for the rest of their lives (who have the same rights as a married couple)"

If I'm not mistaken, (I know it's a logical fallacy to make such a large generalization) a vast majority of the anti-gay-marriage movement is fueled by religion. I think it's pretty hard to deny that marriage is, in itself, a religious institution. It just so happens to be that since we were founded on religion (Yeah, I don't like admitting it either, but stop fooling yourselves) the religious institution is also an equally important legal one.

I think we, as a society, have evolved to a point where we could easily separate "marriage" and a "partnership" as two completely separate, yet often intertwining institutions. I'm pretty sure this would solve the issues on BOTH sides. The religious folk wouldn't have to worry about their religious ceremony getting... well, "tainted", however they'd like to put it, and gays would have equal rights.

But, the most important question of all: Do other gays feel the same way as I do? Do you actually care about the "marriage" part, or do you just want to be recognized on the same level legally as a married couple?

Looking forward to hearing some good feedback! Keep it civil, people. Seriously.

[Unitos]

I hope this thread holds up. It does deal with two touchy MMO-C topics: sexuality and religion.

But, I am completely apathetic about the whole ceremonial, union part of marriage. I just want equal rights for homosexual couples. Currently, heterosexual couples have two things, when they're married. They get to legally be called married, and they get the social aspect of being called married. All I care about are the rights and freedoms associated with the legal aspect.

[Badpaladin]

Let's take love completely out of the equation (sounds silly, right?).

Married couples see more in tax breaks than couples in a civil union. For example, a person could receive health benefits if they are in a civil union the same as somebody who's married (many, many companies offer this), but this person may have to pay income tax on that benefit, depending on if he or she qualifies as a dependent of the other in a civil union. Married couples don't need to deal with that -- health benefits offered by a company are tax-free.

In other words, unless two gay people are married, they're not on the same legal playing field as a married couple. I ultimately think that's the crux of the issue, because if it's not feasible for a couple (let's say they've been together for like, 30 years) to move somewhere where it's legal for them to marry, they're stuck paying more taxes.

[tj119]

The way I see it, I could care less if my partner and I could have the actual... I guess, "title" of marriage. Honestly, if the government was able to just see the two of us and give us the exact same rights as a married couple, what's the difference? I don't need a piece of paper that says "married" to know I'm with the person I love. I'd just like a piece of paper that says something along the lines of "Two dudes that get jiggy with it, live with each other, love each other, and plan on living with each other for the rest of their lives (who have the same rights as a married couple)"

I'm completely straight and I feel the same way, I could care less about being married it's just a shitty piece of paper. I don't understand the arguement of stuff like tradition should stay the same and marriage is between a man and woman, well in the old days tradition that man and that woman also didn't get divorced or have multiple marriages through-out their life. Whatever "tradition" is left has been tarnished by STRAIGHT couples anyways...

[Raintola]

Let's take love completely out of the equation (sounds silly, right?).

Married couples see more in tax breaks than couples in a civil union. For example, a person could receive health benefits if they are in a civil union the same as somebody who's married (many, many companies offer this), but this person may have to pay income tax on that benefit, depending on if he or she qualifies as a dependent of the other in a civil union. Married couples don't need to deal with that -- health benefits offered by a company are tax-free.

In other words, unless two gay people are married, they're not on the same legal playing field as a married couple. I ultimately think that's the crux of the issue, because if it's not feasible for a couple (let's say they've been together for like, 30 years) to move somewhere where it's legal for them to marry, they're stuck paying more taxes.

This here. I personally don't think homosexuality is natural, but they should still have all the rights and benefits as a heterosexual married couple. As long as you're happy with who you're with, all's well. Not being able to have the various monetary benefits of being married puts additional pressure on homosexual couples and thus makes it harder to be happy.

[Cherrysoul]

Gay or Straight OP many people couldn't careless about Marriage or a piece of paper. As for Gay people wanting rights, well that makes perfect sense to me, i mean whatever your sexual orientation you should have the same rights as any human being.

Only recently in Australia where same sex couple recognised as being what we call in a Defacto relationship (when you have lived with someone for 6 months min as a couple) Defacto's here once classed as such, have pretty much the same rights in regards to Property, kids, etc and so on as a Married Couple. Marriage is however still illegal and will remain so, sadly.

The key issue is not so much being married as a same sex couple, but to have the same rights as the rest of the Population. I don't know what country you are from so cannot say if you have defacto rights or not?

As for religion, well its not that Marriage is an issue, it is because Christians believe it is is wrong to be gay , so therefore you cannot get married. Christians are meant to be quite strict in there rules for Marriage, ie no sex before it, divorce is meant to be frowned upon etc, but it's ok for say x woman and y man to marry for a few hours and get divorced, or marry 6 different men over the years, but its not ok for 2 men, or 2 women to marry at all. (Generally speaking, of course some country's are waking up and smelling the coffee and have changed the laws)

But i'm with you its 2012, times have changed, homosexuality is what is , and its about time people stop being scared of nothing, and embrace the fact , that we are all different. Gay people have had enough of being discriminated against as a whole and Marriage is just another example of it, which is why some gay people want to be able to get married, because there is no real reason why they cannot, except certain groups fears eg: Christians and the like.

[dusketernal]

The dispute revolves around the ultimate definition of marriage - in particular, is it religious or secular?

The problem is that we have a situation with it that merges the two areas, causing morality confusion among the masses. What we need to do is separate the two and see what happens. I honestly don't think that most of the religious arguments would continue to hold up if we went with a strictly religious definition of marriage, and took away the legal and financial benefits associated with it. It would quickly prove whether those who are upset over the morality of it truly were concerned with that, or if it's the additional benefits that make marriage, marriage.

Technically, if it's purely based out of religion, which forms the crux of the morality objection, then it should enjoy no special privileges under law - separation of church and state. The argument that marriage comes with a huge history of religious connections is a bit disingenuous - the history of marriage (and the types thereof practiced in western society) shows a variety of accepted patterns, patterns that are now given as immoral (polygamy is the easiest one to come to mind; incest and child brides are others). So to place it in that context, western marriage (indeed, we really should add in christian to that as well, since that's the major theological stance providing the objections) supports marriages that today are seen as non-traditional or forbidden - rather difficult to use history then as the argument in favor of "traditional" marriage.

However, the instant you try to take away those non-religious benefits, those on that side will cry foul, even though they should not enjoy any such rights and protections solely based on something they argue is religious in nature. It's rather contradictory on the face of it.

From there, we could even delve further into what marriage is really for, but that creates a whole new set of issues. The quickest answer is procreation; this denial of homosexual marriage is then based on the fact that such couples cannot reproduce. But then through logical extension, the old, the infertile, and others who are not capable of reproduction should not be permitted to marry, and then all couples should be required to have at least one child within a reasonable amount of time to fulfill this key "purpose" for marriage.

However, we're dealing with a side that does truly base its argument on an unsupportable illogic. I am not saying that's necessarily bad; they are entitled to it and it may serve them quite well. But that illogic should not be used in a manner that cherry-picks acceptability and violates one principle as it attempts to defend another, and thus ends up codifying law. It makes me think of the problematic positions of those who feel that there should be less government, yet feels perfectly comfortable with federal positions that legislate morality on some level.

[Armakus]

This here. I personally don't think homosexuality is natural, but they should still have all the rights and benefits as a heterosexual married couple. As long as you're happy with who you're with, all's well. Not being able to have the various monetary benefits of being married puts additional pressure on homosexual couples and thus makes it harder to be happy.

This probably is an improper thread to state this in, but I love you. No homo.

I really do wish that there were more people that think as rationally as you do. Honestly, I'm okay with the fact that not everyone is ready or willing to accept who I am, that's okay. Even if I wasn't gay, no matter who I was or what I believed in, there are going to be people that are like that.

The reason you're so awesome is that you're willing to take a step back and say "You know what, I might not really think this is natural or normal, and I don't really approve... but honestly, if you're happy with who you are then more power to ya"

I had been kind of forgetting that people aren't just "GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL, RAWR RAWR RAWR" or "GAY MARRIAGE IS AN ABOMINATION UPON MANKIND", but there are logical, cool-headed people in the middle. Thanks for reminding me ^_^

[vulpix]

Personally, I want to be able to get married anywhere in the world, without being looked at as a second class citizen. Equal rights more than anything.

[Armakus]

Personally, I want to be able to get married anywhere in the world, without being looked at as a second class citizen. Equal rights more than anything.

But do you care about that title - "marriage"? Or do you just care about being on the same social and economic stage? Basically, does it matter to you that you have to say "This is my life-partner" instead of "This is my husband", even if you had all of the other rights?

[Sivick]

eh, let em do whatever makes em happy.

[obdigore]

But do you care about that title - "marriage"? Or do you just care about being on the same social and economic stage? Basically, does it matter to you that you have to say "This is my life-partner" instead of "This is my husband", even if you had all of the other rights?

Separate but equal is and always will be a failure. A gay couple being able to get married does not in any way impunge upon the rights of anyone else, therefore there is no legal reason to tell them they cannot.

[sulfuric]

It just so happens to be that since we were founded on religion (Yeah, I don't like admitting it either, but stop fooling yourselves) the religious institution is also an equally important legal one.

Had to stop reading here. America was not founded on religion, America was founded on freedom from religion. Please open a textbook

[Unitos]

Only recently in Australia where same sex couple recognised as being what we call in a Defacto relationship (when you have lived with someone for 6 months min as a couple) Defacto's here once classed as such, have pretty much the same rights in regards to Property, kids, etc and so on as a Married Couple. Marriage is however still illegal and will remain so, sadly.

We had that in the US, called Common-Law Marriage, if I'm not mistaken (only for straight couples, of course). But, I do not think it's honored anymore, in any states. I think you had to be a couple under one roof, for like 7 years, and you in general were considered married. I should probably google it, but I think it's long gone.

[Shaytan]

This is a direct quote from the "How-do-you-feel-about-same-sex-marriage" thread that was closed Yesterday.

The question was about how everyone feels about Gay Marriage.

So I find myself torn on this subject.

Am I homosexual, no.
Am I religious, no.
Do I have anything against homosexuals, no.

I just feel it would cause less conflicts if the religious nuts and the homosexuals came to a compromise (Domestic Partnership for example) instead of a minority claiming they are oppressed by the majority. Its the majority, of course it will oppress you, you either figure a way around it, get over it, or join it.
I am all for two consenting homosexual adults to have all the rights and privileges (taxes, next of kin, etc) that two consenting heterosexual adults would have.

What I have an issue with, is calling it Marriage. In California, we tend to call it a Domestic Partnership.
You can still call your spouse, your husband/wife etc, but the actual term Married vs. Partners is what I have a issue with.

Marriage is typically associated with heterosexual couples being joined in a religious ceremony.

So why not let the religious nuts, homophobic heterosexuals, or the regular heterosexuals who just see marriage as a commitment between man and woman, have the term Marriage, and coin your own term for it?


Just my .02 on the subject.

So it would appear the OP and I have very similar views.

[vulpix]

But do you care about that title - "marriage"? Or do you just care about being on the same social and economic stage? Basically, does it matter to you that you have to say "This is my life-partner" instead of "This is my husband", even if you had all of the other rights?

Equal rights, all inclusive.

[Cynical Person]

http://youtu.be/YSOgxwzCwiw

[Very Tired]

One of the reasons its about is making people see being gay isn't a disease (being gay isn't a choice). Not giving them the right to marry is like not giving people with brown hair the right to marry.

[Lysah]

I care about marriage, that's why I got married.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Marriage isn't inherently religious. Many religions have adopted marriage, but that doesn't mean that religion owns marriage.