I am coming out

[Simfan34]

-in support of gay marriage.

I have given the issue a fair degree of thought, and I think it can be boiled down to this: civil and religious/cultural marriage are two separate- similar and sharing a name, but still separate- things. Being separate, gay civil marriage is something that does not infringe upon the rights of the religious institutions, nor does it impose any unwanted action upon them. In no mainstream religion is a civil marriage held to be a sacrament or sacred union, and so is beyond their purview.

As a country predicated on the principles of equality and the right to the equal enjoyment of liberties, the lack of the right of gay people to be married civilly runs counter to those principles. In a time where a farce is made of the institutions of marriage, both religious and civil, it seems disingenuous to deny men and women, many of whom have been partners for decades, the right to legally enshrine their partnership and encourage its perpetual continuation. In that vein, it also seems counterproductive for those people to be denied to raise children in a stable and loving environment.

My primary concern is that the state shall eventually oblige religious institutions to marry gay couples. I continue to believe that religious marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman and thus gay religious marriages would not be looked upon favorably in the eyes of God. This is unlikely to change, and so are the positions of religious institutions. Great care should be taken to prevent such things from ever coming to pass. Otherwise, gay marriage initiatives have my full support.

[Sibboleth]

Why do so many of the young 'uns here write as though they're writing speeches for the telly?

[Simfan34]

Why do so many of the young 'uns here write as though they're writing speeches for the telly?

Because it has been given thought and really deserves to be fully explained, which can only be done with proper vocabulary and syntax?

[Sibboleth]

Because it has been given thought and really deserves to be fully explained, which can only be done with proper vocabulary and syntax?

By which you mean 'turgid prose', presumably? I nearly fell asleep halfway through the second paragraph.

[afleitch]

-in support of gay marriage.

I have given the issue a fair degree of thought, and I think it can be boiled down to this: civil and religious/cultural marriage are two separate- similar and sharing a name, but still separate- things. Being separate, gay civil marriage is something that does not infringe upon the rights of the religious institutions, nor does it impose any unwanted action upon them. In no mainstream religion is a civil marriage held to be a sacrament or sacred union, and so is beyond their purview.

As a country predicated on the principles of equality and the right to the equal enjoyment of liberties, the lack of the right of gay people to be married civilly runs counter to those principles. In a time where a farce is made of the institutions of marriage, both religious and civil, it seems disingenuous to deny men and women, many of whom have been partners for decades, the right to legally enshrine their partnership and encourage its perpetual continuation. In that vein, it also seems counterproductive for those people to be denied to raise children in a stable and loving environment.

My primary concern is that the state shall eventually oblige religious institutions to marry gay couples. I continue to believe that religious marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman and thus gay religious marriages would not be looked upon favorably in the eyes of God. This is unlikely to change, and so are the positions of religious institutions. Great care should be taken to prevent such things from ever coming to pass. Otherwise, gay marriage initiatives have my full support.

Welcome aboard

I think the issue of religious gay marriage is interesting. The state manages marriage and the legal benefits and protections derived from it. Churches essentially marry under 'licence' from the state. What should never be assumed is that churches don't want to marry gays; many do and increasingly so and the state in not supporting gay marriage is therefore restricting their religious freedom.

[Simfan34]

Because it has been given thought and really deserves to be fully explained, which can only be done with proper vocabulary and syntax?

By which you mean 'turgid prose', presumably? I nearly fell asleep halfway through the second paragraph.

I make no attempt at garrulousness. This is how I write. At the least, I do well on my papers.

[Sibboleth]

This is how I write.

You have my commiserations.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

@ Al

Judging by your earlier posts, you were no great wordsmith when you started posting.

@Simfan

This is the only sane position.

[For Oklahoma]

Glad to hear

[Sibboleth]

Judging by your earlier posts, you were no great wordsmith when you started posting.

Quite so. Writing is a skill.

[dead0man]

-in support of gay marriage.

Good.  Like DeadFlag said, it's the only sane position.

[white trash heroes]

I don't really see the point to same sex marriage to be totally honest, other than to get the same tax goodies other non-child bearing people do. Basically I kind of agree with Milhouse's position on this one (where did he go anyway?).

[asexual trans victimologist]

Welcome, Simfan. We're glad to have you on board.

[ModerateCoward]

In before someone calls him a RINO.

[Bacon King]

I don't really see the point to same sex marriage to be totally honest, other than to get the same tax goodies other non-child bearing people do. Basically I kind of agree with Milhouse's position on this one (where did he go anyway?).

People who don't want kids can't marry out of love?

[white trash heroes]

I don't really see the point to same sex marriage to be totally honest, other than to get the same tax goodies other non-child bearing people do. Basically I kind of agree with Milhouse's position on this one (where did he go anyway?).

People who don't want kids can't marry out of love?

Well I don't really see the point of government tax-favoritism otherwise, which is basically what state-sanctioned marriage is in the US. I mean I guess it might encourage monogamy somewhat but it's fairly easy to get a sham marriage and then sleep around. I'm the kind of person that would probably never marry anyway though even if I was straight. Especially with the divorce courts in this country.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Congratulations and welcome aboard the sanity/libertymobile. We hope you enjoy your trip.

[Bacon King]

I don't really see the point to same sex marriage to be totally honest, other than to get the same tax goodies other non-child bearing people do. Basically I kind of agree with Milhouse's position on this one (where did he go anyway?).

People who don't want kids can't marry out of love?

Well I don't really see the point of government tax-favoritism otherwise, which is basically what state-sanctioned marriage is in the US. I'm the kind of person that would probably never marry anyway though even if I was straight. Especially with divorce court.

There are plenty of other legal benefits to marriage besides taxation- hospital visitation rights, joint insurance policies, easier inheritance through survivorship rights, joint adoption, etc etc (and on that last note, though, it's certainly worth highlighting the fact that gay couples can certainly have children as well). And those legal benefits are ultimately secondary to the fact that marriage has an extremely important social and emotional meaning to most people that a bland term like "life partners" or whatever simply lacks.

I do understand what you're saying; marriage isn't for everybody. And some of the available tax benefits don't really make much sense for families who don't plan on having kids, I agree. But still, even the title of "spouse" carries a ton of significance.

[white trash heroes]

There are plenty of other legal benefits to marriage besides taxation- hospital visitation rights, joint insurance policies, easier inheritance through survivorship rights, joint adoption, etc etc (and on that last note, though, it's certainly worth highlighting the fact that gay couples can certainly have children as well).

That's true but civil unions (for anyone) could confer most if not all of those.

And those legal benefits are ultimately secondary to the fact that marriage has an extremely important social and emotional meaning to most people that a bland term like "life partners" or whatever simply lacks.

That's true, but the purpose of state marriage was and still is somewhat cold and... eugenic to begin with. Hence the continued use of blood tests in our marriage laws. The law may have veered away lately from discrimination but that was clearly the intent of marriage, to be discriminatory. Hence I don't really understand the mainstream GAY/liberal agenda on this issue. To me it sort of misses the larger point(s) raised by government involvement in marriage, which is a) why do we have it in the first place and b) is it appropriate to try to mimic traditions/conventions that were created with heterosexual relationships (and their dynamics) in mind.

I do understand what you're saying; marriage isn't for everybody. And some of the available tax benefits don't really make much sense for families who don't plan on having kids, I agree. But still, even the title of "spouse" carries a ton of significance.

True. I guess some of my feelings stem from thinking of marriage as somewhat.. effeminate of an affair to begin with. Women are raised to make a big deal about their wedding day and all that. I can understand why homosexual/bisexual women would want a marriage ceremony but not really men.

[True Federalist]

-in support of gay marriage.

Good.  Like DeadFlag said, it's the only sane position.

No its not.  Even if one thinks that it would be insane to restrict civil marriage availability based on sexual preference, the option of nit having marriage being recognized at all by the state would be a sane position to take.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

-in support of gay marriage.

Good.  Like DeadFlag said, it's the only sane position.

No its not.  Even if one thinks that it would be insane to restrict civil marriage availability based on sexual preference, the option of nit having marriage being recognized at all by the state would be a sane position to take.

Which countries don't have state-recognized marriage? I actually find Mint/ghost_white's position to be preferential but I'm realist and I recognize that the option of doing away with state marriages is entirely unlikely so I've settled for gay marriage.

By the way: I meant within the dichotomy drawn by our political system.

[Simfan34]

I support the continued existence of civil marriage- marriage is something that should be incentivized.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I support the continued existence of civil marriage- marriage is something that should be incentivized.

I'm entirely ambivalent about marriage and in an ideal world I'd disagree with the government promoting intimate social constructs like marriage and traditional family structures. Keep it organic bruh.

[white trash heroes]

-in support of gay marriage.

Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: 5.02

How did it go up, then?

[Sam Spade]

Why do so many of the young 'uns here write as though they're writing speeches for the telly?

Because they think people actually care about the crap they write.