Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Gay Marriage Makes Sense  
User currently offlineSFOintern From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 770 posts, RR: 5
Posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

Here's a good article from "The Economist" arguing for gay marraige and debunking conventional arguments (like Bush's and all the wacko-far-right Christians) against it. Take a look:

********

The case for gay marriage

Feb 26th 2004
From The Economist print edition

SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely “Massachusetts liberal” opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.

Mr Bush says that he is acting to protect “the most fundamental institution of civilisation” from what he sees as “activist judges” who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution. The city of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. And those “activist judges”, who, by the way, gave Mr Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying further that “the Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”. That obligation could well lead the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.

Let them wed
That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two countries—Belgium and the Netherlands—have given full legal status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships. The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay marriage eight years ago (“Let them wed”, January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously.

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was “traditional”. Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be “married”. But that is to dodge the real question—why not?—and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?

Civil unions are not enough
The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage.

But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends.

The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage—a so-called civil union—is not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a “marriage”. Some European countries, by legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash—of the sort perhaps epitomised by Mr Bush this week.

Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.





46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGo4EVA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2264 times:

Oh ! How rare !! Another GAY thread !!!  Yeah sure

One more gay thread and A.net should move itself to SF  Insane


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2257 times:

Why are gay threads so bad and religious threads so good?

User currently offlineGo4EVA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

I get the connection now, 777236ER my stalker, you LIKE me. That must be why you follow me around so much...

I'm married and have 2 kids, and am very happy.

God bless,

- Jeff


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5015 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2243 times:

777236ER,

Why are gay threads so bad and religious threads so good?

Here's my guess: Our friend here despises the fact that this article pretty much sweeps every argument of the anti-gay crowd here right off the table, and convincingly at it, so he just dismisses it out of hand, and directs attention away from it. It's a well-known tactic. How close am I, Go4EVA?

[Edited 2004-03-01 23:26:44]

User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

Since this hasn't already been clarified, let me do it:

What has been reproduced here is NOT an article (result of research into facts.) It is an opinion piece and should be considered as such, although it's not clear whether this was written by one person or an editorial staff.

redngold

[Edited 2004-03-01 23:27:11]


Up, up and away!
User currently offlineMbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

This article makes a very interesting point that by creating civil unions instead of marriage for same sex couples, "traditional" marriage could very well be undermined.

By creating civil unions, we will have created "marriage lite" for a class of people. It will only be a matter of time until others (opposite sex couples) demand the same privileges that civil unions afford. So then, you have two classes of unions - civil union and marriage. This begins to muddy the waters and seems a much more likely way to erode the institution of marriage.

So for those who are really in this fight to protect marriage, it might be wise for them to consider including their gay bretheren under the same rules of marriage and leave the civil union stuff alone.


User currently offlineGo4EVA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2230 times:

Why are gay threads so bad and religious threads so good?

I've never initiated either kind. I've never said religious threads were good, either.

Careful matey... Don't put words into other people's mouths, ok?  Smile

I do participate, though. I think there has been a lot of BOTH kinds of threads, maybe too many.

God bless,

- Jeff


User currently offlineGo4EVA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

O.K. !

I gotta go. This thread seems DOA ?!?

Scorpio, please see someone about that foot in your mouth. Hopefully they'll be able to remove it painlessly.  Big grin

God bless,

- Jeff

[Edited 2004-03-01 23:46:14]

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

Oh come on, you participate in the religious threads and when a gay thread comes up you write "Oh ! How rare !! Another GAY thread !!! One more gay thread and A.net should move itself to SF"

MAYBE too many? I don't see you going on to religious threads and writing things similar to above.

Edit: Please stop double posting. There IS an edit feature.

[Edited 2004-03-01 23:49:22]

User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9777 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 2170 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SFOintern,
Can that article be found online? If so, could you post a link (if it's legal)?
~Vik



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineWindshear From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 2330 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

"I get the connection now, 777236ER my stalker, you LIKE me. That must be why you follow me around so much..."

Em who is assuming who?
I think opinions or phobic/paranoid (phobia=irrational fear) remarks like these are what is really messing up discussions like these...
For every reply you make with statements/views like these there will be at least one topic, gay people feel the need to protest against such views and assumptions.

So if there wasn't harsh language, discrimination, ignorance and violence towards gay people, there would be nothing to protest about or cry out about, so stop telling us to shut up and start giving us a reason NOT TO!!!

"I'm married and have 2 kids, and am very happy."

Yes and thank God for that, but that is in fact what we gay people also want to experience!

So we are here for the same reason, but some are trying to refuse us the right or ability to achieve such joy in life...

WAKE UP!!!

Boaz..



"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman
User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

"The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage."

Absolutely agree.

"Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments."

That's an interesting point, and I must admit that I haven't ever thought of it that way. However, I have decided to forgo speculating on the correction of broad social trends, as they are generally far too complex for my training as a flight instructor. Instead, I will do all that I can to strengthen the family on the micro level, which is to say, my own.

"Why shouldn't everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation."

I'd favor marriage for all long before I'd favor marriage for none.

'Speed

P.S. Hey MBM, we've gotta hang out sometime. I may be heading to D.C. this summer, and then on to Florida for grad school.


User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 2148 times:

SFOintern, excellent article, thanks for posting!

I totally support gay marriage and gay adoption and do not see how allowing these will undermine 'traditional' marriage. This article makes excellent arguments.



But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineGo4EVA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

Em who is assuming who?
I think opinions or phobic/paranoid (phobia=irrational fear) remarks like these are what is really messing up discussions like these...
For every reply you make with statements/views like these there will be at least one topic, gay people feel the need to protest against such views and assumptions.


I think YOU are making assumptions here, without any info.

In almost any thread where I post, 777236ER is immediately there to counter whatever I write. He does this ALMOST EVERY TIME I write something.

To me, that is a stalker. I choose to be flattered rather than frightened.

I have NOTHING against gay people. I was getting tired of the number of these threads... RELIGIOUS ONES TOO !! OK?

Windshear, you may need to get that foot out of YOUR mouth too. Talk to Scorpio.

And stop jumping to conclusions... 'kay?

God bless,

- Jeff


User currently offlineCsavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1362 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Powerful argument, especially when it comes from the establishment pro-business Economist and not a leftist mag. Especially this line.

"George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states."

not to pick on Dubya specifically, but this is a problem with a lot of Social Conservative poiticians, they hate government until they want government to enforce their moral agenda. Then they love big government. Libertarians have a phrase for them - morality socialists.




I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

In almost any thread where I post, 777236ER is immediately there to counter whatever I write. He does this ALMOST EVERY TIME I write something.

To me, that is a stalker. I choose to be flattered rather than frightened.


No, that's called me disagreeing with your views. To call me a stalker then to mock me saying you're "flattered rather than frightened", and even to imply I'm gay - as if that explains why I'm "obsessed" with you - is downright insulting and says a lot more about you than it does about me.

I have NOTHING against gay people. I was getting tired of the number of these threads... RELIGIOUS ONES TOO !! OK?

So why did your post talk only about gay threads? If you were getting tired of the number of religious ones, why didn't you post something similar in there instead of continuing to post.

And given that you said you take the Bible as your judge of personal sin, and you said the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, you believe homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't sound like "having nothing against gays" to me.


User currently offlineGo4EVA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 2130 times:

He's Baaaaaaack

I knew you were waiting for me to post.

Thanks for proving my point.

I have decided to no longer bother with you.


User currently offlineSFOintern From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 770 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 2129 times:

http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2459758

The link, as requested.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

Excuse me?

What point have I proven?

I disagree with your points, I'm not "stalking you" nor do I "LIKE" [sic] you.

You came into this thread, said how you disliked it, made double and triple posts, then you claimed not to be biased against homosexuality - despite the fact that in a previous thread you said you thought it was a sin, you insulted me, you said I was a stalker, you said I was gay in a way that was offensive to homosexuals, and now you have "decided to no longer bother" me.

Good riddance.


User currently offlineWindshear From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 2330 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

You made an assumption mr. Eva...
A personal assumption, I don't think I need to quote again, but that kind of rhetoric has to change, and that is what I stated, I did NOT assume anything, I am simply trying to illustrate how such rhetoric is being said or written to gay people or in gay debates...

So this was NOT an assumption, but an effort to enlighten you on how you should rethink your rhetoric, if you want to see less gay posts that is...

"I have NOTHING against gay people. I was getting tired of the number of these threads... RELIGIOUS ONES TOO !! OK?"

Em again if I have misunderstood you, you might rethink the way to write or express your self on this matter, because this is MY personal reaction to such rhetoric, so if you want us to know how you feel, then explain it with out fire or flames...

"Windshear, you may need to get that foot out of YOUR mouth too. Talk to Scorpio."

Explain...???
Again an example of failed point making...I have no idea what you mean...

Boaz...



"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman
User currently offlineSleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2046 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

Personally, I would appreciate it if the homosexuals would call this by another name. "Marriage" is a word only for describing the union between a husband and a wife.

If they want to call it by another name or phrase of their choice, so be it. But don't change the meaning of the word. That would be like saying that "red" is now "green" and hoping everyone is OK with it.



II Cor. 4:17-18
User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 2066 times:

"...you believe homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't sound like "having nothing against gays" to me."

Remember, he doesn't have a problem with "gay" people per se, just homosexual behavior. There is a rather substantial difference.

'Speed


User currently offlineInbound From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Sep 2001, 851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (10 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 2062 times:

Robin Williams said something along these lines Sunday night on the Red Carpet..

"I have nothing against SAME SEX marriages because once you get married, it's the SAME SEX over and over again"

haha



Maintain own separation with terrain!
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

Remember, he doesn't have a problem with "gay" people per se, just homosexual behavior. There is a rather substantial difference.

There is? Beliving that the sex you have, and loving the person you love, are mortal sins is classed as "a problem" to me.


25 BN747 : The thing I don't get about the anti-gay guys the most simpliest of all...let them! That's all the more babes for the straight doods!!! It's simple ma
26 NormalSpeed : "There is? Beliving that the sex you have, and loving the person you love, are mortal sins is classed as "a problem" to me." I'll be the first to admi
27 Post contains images Go4EVA : In general, however, I fail to see how a person and their behavior are indistinguishable. After all, a change in behavior is what "learning" is define
28 777236ER : A child stealing a toy may not know that theft is wrong until he is informed. It is, however, society that has determined whether theft is acceptable
29 NormalSpeed : "You quite clearly said you thought homosexuality was a sin. So if someone "committed" homosexuality, while knowing it was "a sin", how does that bear
30 Post contains images Go4EVA : Hee hee... The message you were about to post is too short and probably not of any higher value to the topic at hand. You should think long and hard b
31 Post contains images Go4EVA : BTW 'Speed, you are spot on. I agree completely. God bless, - Jeff
32 NormalSpeed : "By that analogy, murderers are at no time "bad", they are only guilty of bad behavior?" Just noticed this line, and thought that it should be address
33 Tom in NO : Sleekjet, I'm with you on that one. Good suggestion.
34 Windshear : But then what if a gay person is a good person, that upholds all laws an social norms beside just falling in love with a same sex person, why is that
35 777236ER : In other words, I think the typical practice of labeling things "good" or "bad" is simplistic at best. Which is definitely not to say that there is no
36 Vaman : This is my proposal for this whole situation. The word Marriage carries many religious overtones. Thus, the rightwing gets very agitated with the idea
37 NormalSpeed : "Punishing murderous behavoir also punishes a murderous personality." No, punishing murderous behavior only punishes murderous behavior. Last time I c
38 Windshear : Yes indeed a good question... Gay people love (spiritual) same sex...(Physical)... Good person (spiritual) bad person (spiritual)... I judaism there i
39 Johnboy : Legally speaking, wouldn't it be extremely tedious to give equal rights to those in "civil unions" to make them on an even (legal) keel with "marriage
40 Mrwayne : When are these gays going to stop going on about there rights. NORMAL couple`s (ie man & woman) who are not married don`t get the same rights as marri
41 CPDC10-30 : NORMAL couple`s (ie man & woman) who are not married don`t get the same rights as married couple`s so what is so special about the GAY community LOL,
42 FSPilot747 : I'm still struggling to understand what the big deal is. Gay couples are going to live together and be together anyways. Who in the world is it going
43 Mrwayne : Because no one is satnding up for the normal people who are not gay! Why should you get all the same rights? You should be together as singles, not as
44 FSPilot747 : What do you mean no one is standing up for people who are not gay? Again, that really doesn't make valid sense. Why does it bother you SO much if they
45 Scorpio : Mrwayne, Because no one is satnding up for the normal people who are not gay! Don't you see that us 'normal people who are not gay' ALREADY HAVE all t
46 Seb146 : Multnomah County, most populated in Oregon and across the river from me, just started issuing government documents for same-gendered couples wishing t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Is Gay Marriage An Issue? posted Thu Apr 7 2005 03:18:06 by Tbar220
Gay Marriage -- What's So Wrong About That? posted Wed Nov 15 2006 15:13:17 by Boeing757/767
AZ First State Not To Pass Gay Marriage Ammendment posted Wed Nov 8 2006 20:28:58 by Bridogger6
Gay Marriage, The GOP And Dircksen's Speech On CR. posted Wed Jul 19 2006 08:20:13 by SFOMEX
Highest Court In New York Tanks Gay Marriage posted Thu Jul 6 2006 15:59:09 by Dougloid
Help With Input On Gay Marriage Please posted Fri Mar 24 2006 17:53:53 by KaiGywer
Canada Could Do A 180 On Gay Marriage posted Wed Feb 1 2006 06:34:11 by LHMARK
Gay Marriage: I’ve Changed My Mind. posted Tue Jan 10 2006 23:11:14 by SFOMEX
This Makes Sense, Musical Funbags. posted Fri Oct 14 2005 04:10:57 by Jetjack74
First Gay Marriage (That We Know Of) In Pakistan posted Wed Oct 5 2005 22:12:31 by TWFirst