As an American living in Taiwan, I am very happy to see that some states have begun to allow same-sex marriages. Even though I am a straight man, I have always been of the opinion that as long as 2 people love each other and have made a committment to each other, then whether the people are of the opposite sex or the same sex should not be an issue. Love is the only thing that matters or should matter. For far too long, the USA has allowed itself to have its laws dictated to by intolerant religious types who constantly try to convince everyone that acceptance of others mean the same as an offence against God.
With all the problems the US has now, I believe that allowing same-sex marriages is one way to show the world that America is a modern thinking society which is willing to change with the times.
I would be very interested in hearing others views on this subject.
Take care and Peace to all.
You should check out the debates going on over in the International Politics section on this topic. I would note that I don’t believe any states have adopted same-sex marriage as of yet. The correct term is “civil unions.” There is a distinction between these two institutions.
I support gay marriage all the way. 
Smerf
Isn’t a marriage automatically a “civil union?” Also, I read on-line that SanFransico was allowing same-sex couples to wed. Did I get this all wrong?
[quote=“cableguy”]Smerf
Isn’t a marriage automatically a “civil union?” Also, I read on-line that SanFransico was allowing same-sex couples to wed. Did I get this all wrong?[/quote]
A “civil union” is similar to a marriage, but not the same. For example, in California, civil unions do not grant couples the same rights as married couples under federal law with respect to taxation, Social Security benefits and federal employment rights. But, with respect to state law issues in California, I believe there is no significant difference between marriages and civil unions.
Also, San Francisco is a city acting contrary to California state law which provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
It’s a complicated issue.
In Europe, the Netherlands and Belgium have gay marriages and, surprisingly, neither country has experienced civil unrest or the decline of civilisation in general. Germany has established civil unions for gays whereas in France civil union (PACS) is open but not limited to gays.
At least in Belgium gay marriage was introduced after years of lobbying not because a couple of gays and supporters were very vocal about it but because the opposition leader was gay and pushed the issue in parliament. That the acting mayors in Berlin and Paris are both openly gay is perhaps a sign that the
Frisco is (deliberately) ignoring California state law. It’s about the same as if the mayor of Frisco were to go out robbing convenience stores because he didn’t believe that the law against that was acceptable. But whatever. It’s all a publicity stunt; the “marriages” are about as valid as a three-dollar bill. . . . 
All marriages are, in a sense, civil unions, since (in most western countries) to have your marriage recognized by the state/provincial/federal/national government and, therefore, gain the legal benefits bestowed upon married couples, you have to get civil license. It is the same in the US… hence most weddings ending with the words, “by the powers invested in me by (God and) the state/commonwealth of [insert state/commonwealth here], I now pronounce you…”
However, in most cases civil unions are NOT marriages. Despite the idea of seperate but equal (which we know didn’t work too well when it came to separate but equal schools, so why do they think it will work well here?) civil unions do not always provide the same-sex couple with ALL of the legal rights and priveleges that marriages do for opposite-sex couples. One biggie that I can think (since it is relative to me) of is partner immigration.
Even though marriages are requlated by the states, federal law requires that one state recognize and accept a marriage performed in another state. In addition, the federal government recognizes all legally performed marriages. For this reason, they grant immigration rights to the spouses of US citizens. This is not true, however, for civil unions. So, even if I get married in Vermont, Pennsylvania (where I grew up) is not legally bound to honor that union. Nor, is the federal government legally obligated to grant my partner immigration rights.
Besides the legal difference, there are also the cultural differences. As the quote from William Safire (below in my signature block) says, the word “marriage” comes with it a whole set of ideas and feelings that have been associated with the word for centuries. You just don’t get that with “civil unions.” By claiming that marriage is only for a man & a women and not allowing gays and lesbians to have civil marriages, you are relegating them to a lower status in the “collective unconscious” of society.
Think of it this way… let us say that the US federal government decides to institute federally legal civil unions for gays and lesbians. Now, I as a newly “unioned” man go to fill out my tax form. What “marital status” do I check off? Married? No, I’m not “married.” Single? Hmmm… no, I’m not single any more. Divorced? Certainly not. Seperate? Again… no. What is my choice? And, even if we can get every government agency, corporation, etc… to change their forms to include “unioned.” That adds an automatic discrimation factor.
What if the person reviewing my application for is a conservative Christian who thinks gays and lesbians shouldn’t even be in relationships, let alone legally sanctioned ones. Now he/she see my application where I have checked “unioned.” Now, of course, they shouldn’t discriminate on that basis. But, how many of us have NEVER let our prejudices affect our judgement at least once in our lives? And, with an issue that can be as divisive as this, there is more of a chance for discrimination on that basis. However, if I am able to legally check off “married,” the person reviewing the information will be less likely to know if I’m married to a person of the opposite-sex or the same-sex and, therefore, less likely to discriminate on that basis.
Just by having to use “unioned” instead of “married” I place myself into another category that is (and will be) for many seperate but less than equal.
Frisco is (deliberately) ignoring California state law. It’s about the same as if the mayor of Frisco were to go out robbing convenience stores because he didn’t believe that the law against that was acceptable. But whatever. It’s all a publicity stunt; the “marriages” are about as valid as a three-dollar bill. . . . [/quote]
I’d just like to say that ony people who have never lived there or possibly even visited it, call it “Frisco”. That’s just soooo tacky! And your ‘three dollar’ bill remark was as well.
QM, Good post.
I think this bit sums it up quite well:
I’ve been to Frisco many times. Frisco Frisco Frisco… 
Except that robbing convenience stores actually directly hurts someone. Even downloading music on Kazaa hurts more people than these marriages do, but that’s another thread.
It’s funny how this subject turns everyone into Formosa/Lane119/Chicken Little concerning the effects of this civil disobedience. I personally would prefer this come about legally, but it seems some people think it won’t happen legally without their intervention. Only a moron would say to himself “Well, gay people can get married, so it’s ok if I go murder someone.”
That said, there are quite a few morons out there.
I have a same sex marriage. It’s the same sex every time.
Except that robbing convenience stores actually directly hurts someone. Even downloading music on Kazaa hurts more people than these marriages do, but that’s another thread.
It’s funny how this subject turns everyone into Formosa/Lane119/Chicken Little concerning the effects of this civil disobedience. I personally would prefer this come about legally, but it seems some people think it won’t happen legally without their intervention. Only a moron would say to himself “Well, gay people can get married, so it’s ok if I go murder someone.”[/quote]
I didn’t say it was a great comparison, but it’s valid. 
Please note that I didn’t comment on my personal sentiments about gay marriage. The Frisco mayor’s actions are illegal, plain and simple, and so the “marriages” are invalid. He can write up a deed saying he’s sold the Golden Gate Bridge to the happy couples, too, but if they try to collect tolls they’re still gonna get thrown in jail.
And Alien, I quite deliberately call it Frisco because it tweaks the Friscans. 
Tweaking, as opposed to frisking the Friscans? Not to be confused with fricking. Okay, okay…
Why on earth do people have such hang-ups about same-sex couples? It’s not too far from discriminating against interracial ones. Both are born the way that they are and cannot help who they fall in love with. What right does the government have saying that two people cannot get married?
More of our time wasted on stupid debate when there are more pressing marital issues at hand, like spousal abuse. Instead of worrying about two men or two women getting married, how about concentrating on people getting battered and killed by abusive spouses and law enforcement being effective in stopping it rather than exacerbating the problem?
[quote=“ImaniOU”]Tweaking, as opposed to frisking the Friscans? Not to be confused with fricking. Okay, okay…
Why on earth do people have such hang-ups about same-sex couples? It’s not too far from discriminating against interracial ones. Both are born the way that they are and cannot help who they fall in love with. What right does the government have saying that two people cannot get married?
More of our time wasted on stupid debate when there are more pressing marital issues at hand, like spousal abuse. Instead of worrying about two men or two women getting married, how about concentrating on people getting battered and killed by abusive spouses and law enforcement being effective in stopping it rather than exacerbating the problem?[/quote]
Sorry ImaniOU
But the the debate is far from “stupid” in my opinion. Anytime you have laws that treat people, whether gay or straight, differently then that is the time for good people everywhere to stand up and express their dissatisfacion with such laws. In the US, good, decent, honest and kind people are being told that simply because they are the same gender as the one they love then they can’t live the same type of lifestyle as everyone else. This is wrong and people need to discuss this issue as much as possible so that those who hold such ancient viewpoints can see that they are wrong.
While I agree that it is important to focus attention on “people getting battered and killed by abusive spouses” I can’t imagine that there would be much debate about this issue. However, same-sex marriage is something that not everyone agrees upon and thus a debate is the very thing that is needed.
[quote=“cableguy”][quote=“ImaniOU”]Why on earth do people have such hang-ups about same-sex couples? It’s not too far from discriminating against interracial ones. Both are born the way that they are and cannot help who they fall in love with. What right does the government have saying that two people cannot get married?
More of our time wasted on stupid debate when there are more pressing marital issues at hand, like spousal abuse. Instead of worrying about two men or two women getting married, how about concentrating on people getting battered and killed by abusive spouses and law enforcement being effective in stopping it rather than exacerbating the problem?[/quote]
Sorry ImaniOU
But the the debate is far from “stupid” in my opinion.[/quote]
cableguy, though I certainly agree with you that the debate is not stupid, I’m not sure that is what ImaniOU was saying. If you read the statements again, I think the point was that we shouldn’t have to be debating this issue at all… i.e., the granting of marriage rights to same-sex couples should be a given. In other words, it is not the topic of the debate, but the fact that we have to even debate this at all that is stupid. Perhaps I’m wrong in my assessment of ImaniOU’s comments. However, that is how I took it.
There are three “defenses” that the conservatives/“religious wrong” use to oppose gay-marriages (and, even for many, civil unions) that really irk me. One is that gays/lesbians are not capable of maintaining stable relationships. Instead, they only want to go out and be promiscuous.
Well, think about it people… up until the last 10-20 years, how easy was it be for a gay or lesbian couple to develop and maintain a relationship. First of all, where could you go to meet people? It was very difficult and often very risky to just approach someone you may have thought was gay to ask them out. And, there were very few if any kinds of same-sex personals in newspapers, matchmaking services, or websites on the internet when it first became popular. So where did you go? The few gay bars there were? The public park?
If you were lucky enough to find someone, how do you maintain a relationship. Being in the closet (either personally or as a couple) is not conducive to a very healthy relationship. And, if you were courageous enough to be out as a couple, I’m sure the harassment you received was enough to cause problems in many relationships.
Plus, there were no role models. As far as we knew as gay and lesbian youth, it wasn’t even possible to be in a stable, steady relationship. So, of course, “historically” gays and lesbians have not often “proven” that they can maintain relationships. DUH!!! There wasn’t any support for them to maintain those relationships.
Today, there are more resources, more support, more role models and more gays and lesbians that want to be in steady long-term relationships… who see that as a possibility. Just look at the over 2,000 couples, many of whom have traveled from all over the US, who have gotten “married” in San Francisco. This, even though they all have to know that it is not a legal marriage. However, legal or not, to them it is completely valid because it is the first time any government within the US has recognized their relationships as the same as opposites-sex people.
I think it is so hypocritical of the conservatives/religious wrong to use inability to maintain relationships as an argument against same-sex marriages, when they, by opposing those marriages (and, in most cases, civil unions) are deny gays and lesbians something that can help us maintain those relationships, by helping to validate the relationship and provide it with legal protection.
The second thing… and, I know this is long already… I apologize, but I’m all worked up and can’t stop now. 
The second thing that bothers me is the claim that allowing same-sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of marriage. That’s what they said about interracial marriage. And, as with that, it is a load of bullshit. What undermines the sanctity of marriage is things like the soaring divorce rate, people getting married for the wrong reasons, abusive spouses, etc… Why don’t they focus on trying to correct these things, instead of denying people the ability to get married?
The third thing, and the least plausible defense out of all of them… as if any of them are plausible… is that the purpose of marriage is for procreation. Damn… does that slap the face of every married straight couple that physically can’t have children. And, what about couples who get married, but chose not to have kids? Do we put a time limit on these marriage licenses? If you don’t have a kid within two years your marriage is null and void? That would be silly, right? Right… 'cause no one would think of denying a straight couple the right to marry just because they are childless. So, why use that as an excuse to deny it to same-sex couples?
Ok… I’ll get off my rainbow soup box. Just my $200 worth…
Quiet Mountain
I agree with you about the post from ImaniOU. I probably misunderstood what was being said and I appreciate your helping me to see what ImaniOU really meant.
I also felt you made many valid points in your post about why the conservatives/"religious wrong are opposed to gay marriage. However, I would like to add another point that I think shoud not be overlooked. The fact is that the "conservatives/“religious wrong” are working under the mistaken belief that they have to be the ones to uphold what they believe to be God’s opinion that homosexuality is a horrible sin which will lead the world into eternal hell. Thus, they feel it is their job to “save” everyone.
Personally, I am sick and tired of these hypocrites riding around on their high horses looking down at everyone and judging who is or isn’t living a “decent” lifestyle.
The truth is that they, the conservatives/"religious wrong, simply think that homosexuals are sick, degenerate people and they use the bible and religion to mask their own feelings of hatred toward others. They speak of love and yet they try to stop others from having love in their lives. They speak of kindness yet they don’t extend the hand of kindness toward others who don’t share their narrow and bigoted viewpoints. Marriage is very important to the conservatives/"religious wrong and yet they only want a certain “kind” of marriage to be allowed.
I have stated in previous posts that I am a straight man because I think it is very important for everyone to know that the subject of same-sex marriage is not only important to the conservatives/"religious wrong or gay/lesbian people but it is a subject that everyone needs to think about because when certain people in society are considered to be “immoral” or “sick” simply because they are attracted to people of their own gender, and should thus be excluded from taking part in all that a society has to offer its citizens, then it is the society which is “immoral” and “sick.”
Well, sorry for the rant. Thanks for allowing my voice to be heard and I hope that one day the world wakes up and understands that it is not who you love that is important but the important thing is that you have love.
Peace to all.
Oh just shut up.
There isn’t any “argument” here. No more than there was any sort of “argument” for keeping the negroes down 30 years ago down in Mississippi. This is a no-brainer for any decent human being with half a conscience. Anyone who opposes freedom of marriage for anyone who wants it is a BIGOT, plain and simple. Issues like this are as black & white (err…morally speaking) as it gets.
I’m sorry. But even pretending to “compromise” with the fanatics (bigots) on the “other side” on issues like this, as many here are trying to do, is misguided. Ceding redneck skinhead points in the name of “compromise” is moronic and counterproductive. You only shift the terms of debate in their direction - “Oh, we’re so sorry for being gay, won’t you accept us?” Bah!
Currently we have a societal prejudice against homosexuals. 50 years from now, it will seem as quaint as people around the turn of the century hating Irish & Italians. And you conservative bigots opposed to it? Get used to it. You had to grudgingly accept Jews in your country clubs a generation ago, and you can’t stop the force of progress - you’re just gonna have to accept “fags” into your churches from now on.
[quote=“mod lang”]Oh just shut up.
There isn’t any “argument” here. No more than there was any sort of “argument” for keeping the negroes down 30 years ago down in Mississippi. This is a no-brainer for any decent human being with half a conscience. Anyone who opposes freedom of marriage for anyone who wants it is a BIGOT, plain and simple. Issues like this are as black & white (err…morally speaking) as it gets.[/quote]
True this is, or should be, a “no-brainer.” However, though there may not be an argument here (on Forumosa – which actually surprises me that someone hasn’t expressed opposition to same sex marriage yet), there is certainly an argument in the US. Many people, bigots or not, do NOT agree with you or those of us posting in this thread. Whether you (or I) think the issues is black and white (morally or otherwise), many people do not. If things were as uncomplicated as you make out, I would be married to my partner, we would be living in the US ('cause he would have gotten immigration rights through me), and I would not be participating in this forum, as I would have NEVER come to Taiwan.
Besides, those of us who are participating in this thread are only expressing our opinions, even if we all agree with one another. To sit there (at your computer) and tell us to “shut up” is just plain rude and uncalled for. Sheesh
I’m sorry, too, that you seem to have to direct your anger at us, instead of the people who are making this “no-brainer” an issue. Have you signed the petition from Million for Marriage? (See the link in my signature block.) Have you written your representatives in Congress (if you are a US citizen), telling them to oppose the amendment? Have you encouraged your American friends to do the same? It is easy to sit and say that something is a “no-brainer” and that every “decent human being” should agree with you, but you should be smart enough to realize that that is not the way the world works and, like racial issues, sometimes you have to stand up and argue and fight for what you believe.
Ah… back up a bit. Who in this thread is compromising with anyone? Show me the “many here” who are doing this?
Again, who in the hell has said this in this thread? I do not make apologies for being gay. I do want people to accept that being gay is just as normal as being straight, and to give me all the same rights, freedoms and privileges as you straight folks. However, I (and I don’t see many on this forum who do, as you seem to state) have never apologized for being gay and/or asked someone to accept me, despite the fact that I am gay. Sheesh… where do you get these things.
I’m not sure hating Irish & Italians, even if it was 100 years ago is “quaint.” But, I hope you are right that 50 years from now the societal prejudice will be gone. However, despite how “quaint” you think the prejudices were 100 years ago, they are still around. Maybe they aren’t as strong as they were before. And, maybe, they aren’t as acceptable. But, they are still there, despite your view that everything is so black and white. Either, or… etc…
At the risk of being just as rude as I think you were on this, mod lang, maybe you should be the one to shut up… at least until you can direct your anger at the people who deserve it, instead of the people writing in this thread. And a to you, too.
[quote=“mod lang”]Oh just shut up.
There isn’t any “argument” here. No more than there was any sort of “argument” for keeping the negroes down 30 years ago down in Mississippi. This is a no-brainer for any decent human being with half a conscience. Anyone who opposes freedom of marriage for anyone who wants it is a BIGOT, plain and simple. Issues like this are as black & white (err…morally speaking) as it gets.
I’m sorry. But even pretending to “compromise” with the fanatics (bigots) on the “other side” on issues like this, as many here are trying to do, is misguided. Ceding redneck skinhead points in the name of “compromise” is moronic and counterproductive. You only shift the terms of debate in their direction - “Oh, we’re so sorry for being gay, won’t you accept us?” Bah!
Currently we have a societal prejudice against homosexuals. 50 years from now, it will seem as quaint as people around the turn of the century hating Irish & Italians. And you conservative bigots opposed to it? Get used to it. You had to grudgingly accept Jews in your country clubs a generation ago, and you can’t stop the force of progress - you’re just gonna have to accept “fags” into your churches from now on.[/quote]
Mod Lang,
Sorry but are you telling me to “shut up?” If yes, then you didn’t read my post very carefully.
Please let me know if you were talking to me so I can respond to your post. If you were speaking to me, then I will be happy to explain to you why it is imperative that I and others who think like me don’t shut up.
Actually, when people do “shut up,” that is when laws which discriminate against others get passed and kept as laws. To shut up is the least useful way to let others know that what they are doing is wrong and hurtful to others.
If you look at modern America, it is so good African Americans didn’t shut up when they were being treated like 2nd class citizens and told that they could not attend certain schools or eat at certain restaurants, stay at certain hotels, etc.
It is good that AIDS activists in many cities in the USA didn’t shut up because then the government could not continue to shut its eyes and ignore the fact that many of its citizens were being “wiped out” by an out of control plague.
There are many other reasons why I think it is bad advice to have people shut up but I’ll wait to make certain that you were really telling me to shut up. However, if you really believe that shutting up is a good way to make people see their wrong-minded thinking then by all means please enlighten me as to how this will happen. Personally I don’t think it will help at all.
Peace to all.
This has surprised me too - but I do think that people on this board tend to be fairly well educated and/or liberal minded (if not by party ), because the people opposing gay marriage on principles of God, Truth and The American Way would probably not want to move to a weird heathen country like Taiwan to start with Also, they probably know they’ll get flamed - but I suppose that wouldn’t stop some people.
I don’t really know enough about the state of gay rights in the US to comment. In Australia it doesn’t seem to be a big issue for whatever reason. I’m just pissed that married couples in the States are allowed to income split, because they won’t let you do that in Australia, gay or straight