Gay Marriage: should the government ban it?

Should the US government ban same-sex marriages?

  • No, it’s none of their damn business.
  • Yes, God says marriage is between a man and a woman.
  • Yes, homos just want free medical benefits.
  • Yes, except for lesbos because that’s kind of sexy.
  • Other, please explain.

0 voters

The Guardian had a good article on the next “race” issue that may dominate the coming US elections. The recent US Supreme Court overturning of a ban on homosexual sex acts has further brought this into the spotlight.

[quote]Gay is the new black

The gay rights issue has been a ticking time bomb for the George W. Bush administration. And it’s about to explode
By Gary Younge
Thursday, Jun 19, 2003,Page 9

“The difference between being black and being gay,” said one gay activist, “is that you don’t have to come down at breakfast one morning and break it to your parents: `Mum, Dad, I’m black.’” In American politics at present it also means that if you’re black, you are less likely to be the subject of overt abuse from Republicans. … 2003055881

Oh, yawn. Most people in the U.S. don’t give a crap about “gay rights” beyond the stage of “don’t arrest them if they’re screwing in private”.

The homosexual lobby is deluding itself if it thinks that “gay marriage” and “gay discrimination at work” laws are favored by anyone other than a few far-left politicians (e.g., the entire Seattle city council, the entire Frisco city council. . .). Most people don’t care, and most of the ones who do care are opposed to these trial balloons.

Who here can say what the majority of people in the US think about this other than to say that indeed people are usually apathetic about issues that don

For a country of people who don’t care, it sure took them long enough to come to this ruling.

There are laws and then there are laws. Not all laws are enforced. In Taiwan, they’ve got every law on the books, but most are ignored by Taiwanese. The sodomy laws are another example - when’s the last time anyone was actually thrown in jail for being gay in the U.S.? I suppose you’d have to go all the way back to Oscar Wilde’s time to find an example of these laws actually being enforced (perhaps a quick Google search might prove me wrong, though).

1998, at least the case the supreme court ruled on was in 1998. There might have been some arrests since.

Wow. But that’s Texas for ya…sometimes I wish they’d just secede and stop embarrassing the rest of the country with their hyper-rightwing BS.

I’m ashamed to say my native state also still has sodomy laws on the books. There have a few state legislators who have tried to quietly take it off the books - it hasn’t been enforced in the state in god knows - but politicians have to cravenly kiss ass to the bible-thumper vote, figuring that it’s not that important as making sodomy “legal” would be of only symbolic value as it’s been effectively legal for a long time (bar the military and, apparently, Texas) - there are gay bars in most of the major cities in those 13 states that officially ban sodomy.

Well, at the very least, the test case that made it to the Supreme Court was someone who was put in jail for engaging in homosexual sodomy.

Definitely seems like support for gay rights has grown. Hard to document as fact, but it seems like being gay wasn’t very mainstream in the US when I was growing up. After Clinton made it to the White House, though, they had a big march on Washington for gays that was a big success and was really empowering for all of us there. Now Will and Grace is a a huge hit on TV. Beckham the English soccer star is posing for gay magazines. I don’t know anyone afraid to be out of the closet. I even saw a TV show about how gay white men (who overall tend to be better educated and have higher incomes) are starting to adopt black inner city kids who don’t have permanent homes. They’re being considered an untapped resource by the adoption community more and more.

I think people definitely care about gay marriage and discrimination against gays in the work place. As more gays and gay-friendly people voice their support, and as our leadership ranks become filled with people educated during a more progressive generation, I think it’s only a matter of time before archconservatives become an embarassment to themselves and recede into history just like southern segregationists.

I agree with Neo that people care about discrimination, just not about gays. Even equating being gay to being black is intellectually dishonest at best and undescribable ignorance and blatant baiting at worst.

Gay discrimination in the work place does happen, but not in the quantity that gays would have us believe. Sexual preference and actions are a privacy issue, and fortunately the US Supreme Court agrees. Most large businesses go out of their way to be or appear to be gay friendly.

Though I could care less about someone’s sexual preferences, I do have very strong opinions about gay marriage. Gay marriage is a farce in my book. There is no reproduction involved. Gay relationships tend to be short lived and measured in “dog years.” Now before someone says, but I know a couple long term gay couples, let me explain. How many gay couples do you know that have been together for 20+ years? What is the average duration of a homosexual marriage/relationship versus a hetersexual one? Most that I have known and most gay people I have known have always commented on the short relationships that gay couples have. I don’t want my benefits jacked up at work because Bob married his gay friend, who has AIDS, so that he would be covered by our company benefits. Contracts can take care of most problems for gay couples. There are paternity suits. No one gives up there time and earning potential to have and/or raise children. The current private retirement plans available take care of you or your lover’s needs much better than social security ever will. Why do they need marriage?


Assuming that reproduction validates marriage, what about those married couples that aren’t homosexual and aren’t too keen on children? Should their marriages be nullified after a certain number of years if they haven’t reproduced? If you could care less (or couldn’t care less) about sexual preference, then why should gay marriage bother you? Clearly it is an issue of sexual preference. And clearly it bothers you. You sound like one of those guys who says “I’m not a racist; I have black friends.”

I think this quote speaks for itself…

You remind of guys I grew up with who complained about not wanting to pay taxes because of “not wanting to support them welfare queens over in “niggertown” pumping out babies just so’s they could get a gubmint check”. Equating gay=AIDS and implying that the only reason a gay would get married would be to cover his partner’s medical bills is…oh come on, Okie from Muskogee, how many instances of something like that happening do you honestly think there are? Like there’s some rash of gay men all hopping to get married so they can leech health benefits off the welfare state :unamused:

Growing up in the South, I know a bigot when I see one. You develop a nose for it, as distinguished from a guy just being a little clumsily politically incorrect. And dude, your post just smells of it.

On edit: Okay, that’s funny. The autoeditor changed my “n****rtown” to “person of a minority group”

This offends me, too.

I think you’ve grasped the wrong end of the stick. Gay couples don’t want “marriage” in the heterosexual sense, nor does any marriage necessarily require reproduction. Gay couples often do live quite different lives from married couples, and that is perfectly natural. Why should they follow a heterosexual mould? Still, with heterosexual divorce rates at over 50% within 2 years, the assumption that gays are just out to grab benefits is highly specious. Many couples marry for convenience purposes, straight or gay.

What gay people want is to simply have their relationship recognised in the eyes of the law and to thus qualify for all the other rights, benefits and dignities that heterosexual couples enjoy. It

I think Okami has his causes and effects mixed up. If homosexual marriages weren’t excluded from general society, if there were some structure provided as well as support heterosexual marriages enjoy, perhaps the homosexual marriages would last longer. That is, if the view that they don’t last as long as heterosexual marriages is based on facts.

This pie-in-the-sky “perhaps” is rooted in some pretty thin air.

Strong religious beliefs are the single best predictor of a lasting marriage – in the U.S., anyway. Another top predictor is having kids; you HAVE heard couples lamenting “we’re staying together for the kids’ sake,” haven’t you?

Homosexuals typically have neither of these factors working for them, and “gay culture” is far more hedonistic (gay bathhouses, the orgies (“wine and cheese parties”) that a gay coworker of mine used to go to on a weekly basis) than heterosexual.

In short, every indication is that gays will have a higher divorce rate and shorter relationships than heterosexuals.

Aside: There was an article on Yahoo a few months ago on “homosexual divorce”, and how some of those romantic-eyed gays who went up to Vermont to “get married” were now trying to “get divorced”. Problem was, their home states didn’t recognize the marriage to begin with and so wouldn’t grant them a divorce, and while Vermont would marry any couple, Vermont required Vermont residence to get a divorce there. So they were stuck – truly “until death do you part” – unless one of them would move to Vermont for one year (or more) to gain legal status for getting a divorce.

Uh, no, they’re not – they won that right the other day. That battle is now over, so they aren’t “still fighting”. And even before the SCOTUS decision, they weren’t “still fighting” in three quarters of the states.

What about all the European countries where they still can’t get married or whatever? Gosh, there are quite a few of them, aren’t there?

One question:

Why have gay marriage and what benefit does it confer on society? What use does a gay marriage have?

I also enjoyed having a few of my fellow forumosans have the audacity to call me a bigot without having ever met me or knowing me personally.

Wipt: I never said it bothered me. Please do not misquote or put words in my mouth. I said I think it’s a farce. If two gay people want to get married then let them. I didn’t say it should be illegal nor legal as that is not for me to decide. I expressed my opinion of it. Labeling me and assuming that I have opinions that I don’t have is intellectually dishonest and slander. Please find some real demons, because none reside under this handle. :smiling_imp:

Mod lang: See above comments about putting words in my mouth and misquoting. I gave one example. What about the very real problems of marriage. Marriage is not a game but a sacred convenant between two people. What are you going to do when your spouse is sick, runs you into debt, cheats on you, leaves you, or commits polygamy? The legal framework exists to make an arrangement similiar to marriage. More gov’ts and businesses are recognising the needs and providing the benefits for those who have long term partners. Why do we need to go on and on about gay marriage? You can have your ceremony, split everything 50/50, buy property and investments together and make them the sole beneficiary when you die in such a way that no estate taxes are taken out. The only things you do not get are their social security and benefits with the majority of businesses and gov’ts. Why do we need to craft new legislation in every state(marriage falls under state laws in the US) when the legal framework is already there for sharing of property and investments? I also enjoyed the play on my name and how you dwelled on one issue out of the total post. Very mature you’re a regular at tealit. :unamused:

Poagao: What’s not there to support gay union in the US and to work out the problems involved with it? We have marriage counselors, the ability for property and investments to be held by two people concurrently with the survivor getting the full investment in case of their partner’s death. What support are we missing exactly? I do not see or understand how I have my causes and effects mixed up.

The registered user who gave me a -3 rating. Listen have the balls to put your name to your ratings. Standing behind anonymity makes you no better than the “guests” at who flame away, but have nothing useful to post under a recognisable handle.

Gay marriage is a farce because the whole legal framework is already there. You can even have a ceremony, because no one(including me) is stopping you or going to stop you. In all the issues facing the US, gay marriage has got to be on the low of the lows. To have some bullshit article even equate being black with being gay is total nonsense. I have no problem with gay people. I just dislike having this whole gay marriage nonsense thrown around without a sensible reason for it.

I believe there are sensible gay couples who could benefit from marriage, but we are dealing with a very small percentage of the population(1-5%) and legislation having to be crafted in all the states. I don’t see the use of it though with the already existing legal framework that I have mention being in existence. There is no majority suppressing their rights to have shared access to property and investment, just missing some measly benefits from majority of businesses and gov’ts(US, state, and local). there is no one saying they can’t have a life partner. So where is the problem and why is it such a pressing concern?


I think this is just plain common sense. People don’t mature only if they’re heterosexual (even writing out this statement makes me laugh because of its absurdity). They mature because of a lot of the things we would naturally think of. Social life and structure is probably very important. I’m sure many of the married couples in forumosa can attest to the effect of getting settled down with a life partner and having a child. I’ve heard many heterosexual couples talk about the effect that becoming responsible for a child has on a person’s outlook. So if more gay men get married, adopt children, and start going to BBQs and driving the kids to soccer games, it seems reasonable to me that they will resemble partying bachelors a lot less.

Granted, many relationships, hetero or otherwise, don’t last. Does that mean if a hetero marriage fails, then the marriage should be declared a farce and since both individuals showed an inability to stay in a marriage, they should never again be allowed to marry? I don’t see why a tendency for short term relationships, even if true, should be a reason to prohibit marriage. Since most early marriages fail, should all people be prohibited from marrying before the age of 35?

Well, I’m still not sure why paralleling being gay to being black is either intellectually dishonest, ignorant or an attempt to bait. Sure, the history and experiences are different. But they share the commonality of facing discrimination as a minority group. Not every black person has had the same experience of discrimination, nor has every gay person. I’m sure any hate crime victim (any black or gay person that has been beaten up and killed) would say their experience was worse than any of ours, if they were alive. But certainly, the just and moral reason that discrimination against blacks is wrong is also the very same just and moral reason that discrimination against gays is also wrong.

[quote=“Okami”]One question:

Why have gay marriage and what benefit does it confer on society? What use does a gay marriage have?[/quote]
In your long post, you seem to now restrict your argument to the more narrow point that there is no need for the additional legislation when they are already covered. Seems like you’re basically saying we shouldn’t have gay marriage because it would be a lot of legislative trouble in the 50 states.

Well, since the social structure, coverage and support apparently exists already (as you seem to state), then all the more reason to just go ahead and draft the additional legislation. I’m sure we can find a few gay supporters out there to craft the legislation, and it’ll be no skin off of your back. I promise you, it won’t require even 10 minutes of your time.

If they’re doing all the legislative legwork, the question is, why do you object? Obviously, it’s very symbolically important to some people.


Strong religious beliefs are the single best predictor of a lasting marriage – in the U.S., anyway. [/quote]

Well, the statistics do seem to bear this out:

So, if you want to increase your chances of a successful marriage, give up your religious beliefs and become an atheist/agnostic.

Therefore, only athiests and agnostics should be allowed to marry! :laughing: :laughing: