Gay Marriage

Someone asked about the situation in the the states of the US. It is this:

As of this moment, each state is constitutionally free to define "marriage" to include or not include same sex marriage.

As of this moment, each state is free to constitutionally deny recognition to a same sex marriage lawfully entered into in another state. This might require an example. Say Bob and John get married in California and then move to Kansas. The State of Kansas may grant or not grant, as its legislature chooses, legal recognition to the married status of Bob and John.

These two questions, whether it is constitutional for a state to choose not to sanction a same sex marriage and whether it is constitutional to recognize a same sex marriage lawfully entered into in another state, is what SCOTUS is considering.

I don't have the facts in front of me, but the states are split on these two questions, about half and half would be my guess but it could be 2/3 "pro-gay marriage" and 1/3 "anti-gay marriage".

"Marriage" is not just a social status, but a legal status that confers certain rights and privileges to the two married individuals. Thus, this is a legal and not moral debate. And what is legal in the US ultimately turns on whether it's constitutional.

It really is a fascinating debate. And with some exceptions, I take the concerns from the anti-gay marriage side as genuine. They really do see a degeneration of "moral values" associated with gay marriages. But of course they have no supporting data of any kind whatsoever to suggest that with gay marriage we will have increased violence, poverty, criminal behavior, lower educational achievement or any other ordinary indicia of societal decline (think Mad Max) whatsoever. All we will have is an increasingly smaller and smaller group of people who just don't like the idea of two men or two women having sex with each other.
 
McUnited said:
I admit the possibility they can. Perhaps you can also admit the possibility they can't (or perhaps not).
But women can be in a civil partnership and bring up a child. Or my afore-mentioned parriage.
Click to expand...

Loads of hetero couples can't bring up a child in a stable home. We don't forbid them from getting married on the possibility that the home life might be shit for any hypothetical children.
 
McUnited said:
I admit the possibility they can. Perhaps you can also admit the possibility they can't (or perhaps not).
But women can be in a civil partnership and bring up a child. Or my afore-mentioned parriage.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that you're amenable to a "domestic partnership" but not "marriage" for same sex couples?
 
langster said:
Gavin Henson the Welsh rugby player. You should read his book and share his pain of a life he felt he had no choice but to take because of the social pressures put on him, especially as a "man" playing a "mans game"


And why the hell can two women who are married not offer a loving caring home to children they have through adoption or using a surrogate father or a turkey baster? Or two men who adopt?

Or is that taboo too?
Click to expand...

Umm, what?
 
McUnited said:
I admit the possibility they can. Perhaps you can also admit the possibility they can't (or perhaps not).
But women can be in a civil partnership and bring up a child. Or my afore-mentioned parriage.
Click to expand...

Is it just the word you are attached to then? Would Die Ehe be acceptable to you?
 
McUnited said:
I admit the possibility they can. Perhaps you can also admit the possibility they can't (or perhaps not).
But women can be in a civil partnership and bring up a child. Or my afore-mentioned parriage.
Click to expand...

I admit the possibility they could feck up raising a child just as easily as a married man and woman can, but that will be down to bad parenting, not because they are gay or married.

Imagine trying to explain to your kids why you couldn't get married. It wouldn't make any sense to the child, just as it doesn't really make any sense to many adults.

Pogue Mahone said:
Whoah. Is Gavin Henson gay?
Click to expand...

:lol:, I meant Gareth Thomas, feck knows why I was thinking about Gavin Henson.
 
Gannicus said:
Someone asked about the situation in the the states of the US. It is this:

As of this moment, each state is constitutionally free to define "marriage" to include or not include same sex marriage.

As of this moment, each state is free to constitutionally deny recognition to a same sex marriage lawfully entered into in another state. This might require an example. Say Bob and John get married in California and then move to Kansas. The State of Kansas may grant or not grant, as its legislature chooses, legal recognition to the married status of Bob and John.

These two questions, whether it is constitutional for a state to choose not to sanction a same sex marriage and whether it is constitutional to recognize a same sex marriage lawfully entered into in another state, is what SCOTUS is considering.

I don't have the facts in front of me, but the states are split on these two questions, about half and half would be my guess but it could be 2/3 "pro-gay marriage" and 1/3 "anti-gay marriage".

"Marriage" is not just a social status, but a legal status that confers certain rights and privileges to the two married individuals. Thus, this is a legal and not moral debate. And what is legal in the US ultimately turns on whether it's constitutional.

It really is a fascinating debate. And with some exceptions, I take the concerns from the anti-gay marriage side as genuine. They really do see a degeneration of "moral values" associated with gay marriages. But of course they have no supporting data of any kind whatsoever to suggest that with gay marriage we will have increased violence, poverty, criminal behavior, lower educational achievement or any other ordinary indicia of societal decline (think Mad Max) whatsoever. All we will have is an increasingly smaller and smaller group of people who just don't like the idea of two men or two women having sex with each other.
Click to expand...

You're one of the few posters in this thread that writes articulately. I agree there needs to be a careful distinction betwen the legal and moral dimensions of the debate - things can be immoral but legal (and vice versa, some might argue). I'd take issue with one point you raise here - that there's no supporting data of any kind that same-sex marriage will have a degenerative effect. Of course there isn't, since any degenerative effect will take time to manifest itself. If it does become apparent, though, would you then consider it to be a good argument against same-sex marriage? I don't feel it would make any impact on those who are pro-same-sex-marriage because they would still seek to uphold the rights and desires of the individuals concerned above any effect they have on society.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Because he would look better naked?
Click to expand...

I dunno, Gareth looks pretty fit to be honest.

th
 
The main argument I keep hearing for the no side seems to be how the poor kids would be bullied and it wouldn't be right if they didn't have a Mam and a Dad.

Kids are bullied for a million different reasons every day and many millions of people have been raised by uncles, brothers, grandparents, single parents etc.

Surely a happy, loving home is better than being shipped around to different foster homes or an orphanage. These same sex couples aren't going to start snatching kids from the Brady bunch
 
Seems to me the main argument is that poofs are an abomination, but because they can't get away with saying shit like that anymore they have to make up these bullshit arguments.
 
Grinner said:
Seems to me the main argument is that poofs are an abomination, but because they can't get away with saying shit like that anymore they have to make up these bullshit arguments.
Click to expand...

Was there any need?
 
Alex99 said:
Was there any need?
Click to expand...

I'm putting myself in their shoes. There is no logical reason other than detesting gays and what they do. It was the same with anti miscegnation.

I don't understand how the religious get to dictate this when it's clear that marriage is a social construct rather than a religious one. Fair enough gays can't marry in a church, but the religious tend not to do this anymore either. Don't call it holy matrimony, but they can sure as hell call it matrimony or marriage.
 
17Larsson said:
The main argument I keep hearing for the no side seems to be how the poor kids would be bullied and it wouldn't be right if they didn't have a Mam and a Dad.

Kids are bullied for a million different reasons every day and many millions of people have been raised by uncles, brothers, grandparents, single parents etc.

Surely a happy, loving home is better than being shipped around to different foster homes or an orphanage. These same sex couples aren't going to start snatching kids from the Brady bunch
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware same sex couples were still able to adopt in Ireland, so this will have no affect on that.
 
McUnited said:
You're one of the few posters in this thread that writes articulately. I agree there needs to be a careful distinction betwen the legal and moral dimensions of the debate - things can be immoral but legal (and vice versa, some might argue). I'd take issue with one point you raise here - that there's no supporting data of any kind that same-sex marriage will have a degenerative effect. Of course there isn't, since any degenerative effect will take time to manifest itself. If it does become apparent, though, would you then consider it to be a good argument against same-sex marriage? I don't feel it would make any impact on those who are pro-same-sex-marriage because they would still seek to uphold the rights and desires of the individuals concerned above any effect they have on society.
Click to expand...
What are the possible downsides?
 
McUnited said:
You're one of the few posters in this thread that writes articulately. I agree there needs to be a careful distinction betwen the legal and moral dimensions of the debate - things can be immoral but legal (and vice versa, some might argue). I'd take issue with one point you raise here - that there's no supporting data of any kind that same-sex marriage will have a degenerative effect. Of course there isn't, since any degenerative effect will take time to manifest itself. If it does become apparent, though, would you then consider it to be a good argument against same-sex marriage? I don't feel it would make any impact on those who are pro-same-sex-marriage because they would still seek to uphold the rights and desires of the individuals concerned above any effect they have on society.
Click to expand...

Please mind the passive-aggressive insults to other posters going forward. Thanks.
 
McUnited said:
You're one of the few posters in this thread that writes articulately. I agree there needs to be a careful distinction betwen the legal and moral dimensions of the debate - things can be immoral but legal (and vice versa, some might argue). I'd take issue with one point you raise here - that there's no supporting data of any kind that same-sex marriage will have a degenerative effect. Of course there isn't, since any degenerative effect will take time to manifest itself. If it does become apparent, though, would you then consider it to be a good argument against same-sex marriage? I don't feel it would make any impact on those who are pro-same-sex-marriage because they would still seek to uphold the rights and desires of the individuals concerned above any effect they have on society.
Click to expand...

The "degenerative effect" argument is a serious one and I'll do the best I can to respond to it.

Same sex marriage has been allowed in Massachusetts since 2004. (The state supreme court held that the state constitution prohibited a ban on same sex marriage.) A decade is a reasonably long period of time in which to gather data to support or reject the "degenerative effect" hypothesis. There is not a shred of evidence that the people of Massachusetts have suffered any "degenerative effect" whatsoever. If you have such evidence, whether it be in the form of increased crime or poverty and the like, and that that such data is controlled for other factors such as economic conditions, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Other states that have allowed gay marriage show no increased incidence of degeneration of any kind. Not even a tiny blip.

To answer the first part of your two-part response is that there is no such evidence of a degenerative effect on society nor is there any rational reason we might expect that there would be. Does being a married, as opposed to an unmarried, gay suddenly make you more likely to be a criminal or to live in poverty or in any way suffer from a catastrophic degeneration?

The second part of your two-part question deserves an equally serious reply. What if a mountain of evidence surfaced that with same sex marriage came societal degeneration? I would still not consider such data to be a rational argument against same sex marriage. We've had a few centuries of "opposite-sex only marriage" and it's arguably the case that societal degeneration, however one would wish to define it, has run amok. Rates of spousal abuse, poverty, income disparity, crime, educational achievement, environmental conditions and much more have all risen (at least in the US) over the last century -- during an era in which individuals of the same sex were not allowed to marry. Would the logical conclusion be that because things have gotten worse over the last half century for most of us (the 1% argument) that we should therefore ban opposite sex marriage? Of course not.

This argument, which you call the "degenerative effect" of gay marriage, was extensively considered in the Proposition 8 litigation that arose from California and made it to the US Supreme Court. (I know Dennis Hollingsworth personally I can tell you he's a bona fide douchebag.) These findings of "fact" by Prop 8's defenders were found by the courts to be completely devoid of merit.

Rather than "degeneration", why would you not concede the more likely outcome that two men or two women who are bound by marriage would be more, not less, likely to be productive citizens, better neighbors and better people? I'm not saying that marriage makes a bad person a good person, but all things considered marriage provides a social and economic base of stability that more often than not would be a good thing for the two people involved and the community at large?
 
Gannicus said:
Rates of spousal abuse, poverty, income disparity, crime, educational achievement, environmental conditions and much more have all risen (at least in the US) over the last century
Click to expand...

There is no reliable data on spousal abuse over the last 100 years but what info we do have suggests that it is on the decline in the recent years. 0/1

The poverty rates are vastly better now than it was over the last 100 years in both relative and absolute terms. 0/2

Crime is basically as low as it has been in the last 100 years and this is almost entirely attributed to getting rid of leaded gasoline. 0/3

100 years ago, 2/3 of children went to school, 1/8 graduated high school and 1/50 had bachelors degrees. These numbers are massively better now. 0/4

Environmental damage is hard to assess. Obviously we are in worse shape now than we were before, but we have made serious efforts to fixing the excesses of an economy built on coal and gasoline and we are long past the industrial revolution. We'll call this one N/A.



Life now is better in almost every single way than it has ever been.
 
McUnited said:
If you have nothing constructive to say, why say anything at all?
Click to expand...

:lol:

This place would be a ghost town if we only wrote when we had something constructive to say. But also I find your views ridiculous. You don't even seem to know you're argument. You don't want gay people to marry each other but don't offer any real reasons. If you'd just admit you're uncomfortable with it and that's the reason then people wouldn't laugh at you as much. But trying to justify it without a real argument is making your arguments look silly. That's why the majority of people on here are not only disagreeing with you, but ridiculing you.
 
McUnited said:
Many people thought about it and came to the opposite conclusion. Just because it happened here doesn't mean it's correct - change doesn't necessarily equal progress. I'm curious to know whether you would strip marriage of all its religious connotations and how liberal you are.
Click to expand...

Marriage is and should be a civil legal process open equally to all adults. If you choose to also undergo a religious ceremony then you should be free to do so but it should have no additional legal status.

Would you, for example, be happy for people to be married wherever they wanted to, by whomever they wanted (their uncle/aunt), with no association to religious authority or dogma?
Click to expand...

A pointless non-sequitur typically trotted out by the religious to distract from the discrimination inherant in not allowing gay marriage.
 
Eboue said:
There is no reliable data on spousal abuse over the last 100 years but what info we do have suggests that it is on the decline in the recent years. 0/1

The poverty rates are vastly better now than it was over the last 100 years in both relative and absolute terms. 0/2

Crime is basically as low as it has been in the last 100 years and this is almost entirely attributed to getting rid of leaded gasoline. 0/3

100 years ago, 2/3 of children went to school, 1/8 graduated high school and 1/50 had bachelors degrees. These numbers are massively better now. 0/4

Environmental damage is hard to assess. Obviously we are in worse shape now than we were before, but we have made serious efforts to fixing the excesses of an economy built on coal and gasoline and we are long past the industrial revolution. We'll call this one N/A.



Life now is better in almost every single way than it has ever been.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you completely, but we've heard the mantra over and over in recent years about the decline of civilization and everyday life in the US, both from the left and the right.

But as I look out the window every single day, life looks a lot better now than before, although that may simply be my personal bias, as I was raised by immigrants from Mexico in a brutally violent neighborhood in Los Angeles (lost my cousin to a gang fight) and today I'm an upper middle class guy who speaks fluent English and drives a car with heated seats and an automatic window wiper and whose daughter will be attending Yale grad school this fall. So in a very real sense, my life is "better" -- a word admittedly fraught with peril -- than it was for my parents.

Backing up from the point, whether or not things are "better" or "worse" for most of us than 50 years ago -- I say things are better (lower mortality rates, increased access to leisure, Man United no longer being a midtable club, lower crime rates, less abject poverty, no threat of nuclear war), but many say things are worse -- there is no rational basis for the conclusion that allowing same sex marriages will cause societal degeneration.
 
Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, I wonder if we removed the tax-breaks associated with marriage, would this be such a big deal? As a single person, what grates me the most is when I see my married colleagues automatically get a marriage bonus from Uncle Sam every year.

For the purposes of alimony and child-custody, I believe live-in relationships and civil unions have the same legal standing as marriage. Is that correct?
 
McUnited said:
You still aren't making the distinction between sexuality and gender, Eboue. Mine isn't an anti-gay stance. It's an anti same-sex marriage stance.
Click to expand...

The two are the same.
 
Gannicus said:
I actually agree with you completely, but we've heard the mantra over and over in recent years about the decline of civilization and everyday life in the US, both from the left and the right.

But as I look out the window every single day, life looks a lot better now than before, although that may simply be my personal bias, as I was raised by immigrants from Mexico in a brutally violent neighborhood in Los Angeles (lost my cousin to a gang fight) and today I'm an upper middle class guy who speaks fluent English and drives a car with heated seats and an automatic window wiper and whose daughter will be attending Yale grad school this fall. So in a very real sense, my life is "better" -- a word admittedly fraught with peril -- than it was for my parents.

Backing up from the point, whether or not things are "better" or "worse" for most of us than 50 years ago -- I say things are better (lower mortality rates, increased access to leisure, Man United no longer being a midtable club, lower crime rates, less abject poverty, no threat of nuclear war), but many say things are worse -- there is no rational basis for the conclusion that allowing same sex marriages will cause societal degeneration.
Click to expand...

Heated seats are amazing.
 
AtlMuppet said:
Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, I wonder if we removed the tax-breaks associated with marriage, would this be such a big deal? As a single person, what grates me the most is when I see my married colleagues automatically get a marriage bonus from Uncle Sam every year.

For the purposes of alimony and child-custody, I believe live-in relationships and civil unions have the same legal standing as marriage. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Marriage doesn't always incur tax benefits. Two high income, say $200k/year each earners, would almost certainly receive a marriage penalty. If your colleagues are getting a marriage bonus it means they're likely either in low income brackets (relatively speaking) or one spouse makes significantly less than the other. Not really something to be envious of unless your colleagues are all high earners with smokeshow wives at home.
 
Gannicus said:
I actually agree with you completely, but we've heard the mantra over and over in recent years about the decline of civilization and everyday life in the US, both from the left and the right.

But as I look out the window every single day, life looks a lot better now than before, although that may simply be my personal bias, as I was raised by immigrants from Mexico in a brutally violent neighborhood in Los Angeles (lost my cousin to a gang fight) and today I'm an upper middle class guy who speaks fluent English and drives a car with heated seats and an automatic window wiper and whose daughter will be attending Yale grad school this fall. So in a very real sense, my life is "better" -- a word admittedly fraught with peril -- than it was for my parents.

Backing up from the point, whether or not things are "better" or "worse" for most of us than 50 years ago -- I say things are better (lower mortality rates, increased access to leisure, Man United no longer being a midtable club, lower crime rates, less abject poverty, no threat of nuclear war), but many say things are worse -- there is no rational basis for the conclusion that allowing same sex marriages will cause societal degeneration.
Click to expand...

We won the league in 1965.
 
RexHamilton said:
We won the league in 1965.
Click to expand...

The second half of the 1960s was definitely a golden era for United. I should have written "40 years ago" when pretty much everything, including United's fortunes, was shit, with the exception of Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.
 
@McUnited Your model society?

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-...al-pressures/article7155055.ece?homepage=true

A gay man and a straight woman in a marriage are both victims of a society that reinforces heterosexual marriage as the norm.
Recently, a doctor in Delhi committed suicide when she found out that her husband was gay. Her suicide note indicates that she also faced mental harassment from her husband. In late 2014, a dentist in Bangalore, on finding out that her husband was having sexual relationships with other men, filed a case under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Both these incidents highlight the issues surrounding homosexual men in marriages with straight women.

I am a lawyer who assists women in matrimonial and domestic violence cases in different forums. I have also been associated with campaigns for the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) persons. Due to my work in these spheres, these incidents evoke mixed responses. On the one hand, I strongly feel for the woman, who is in a marriage devoid of sexual intimacy coupled with cruelty. On the other hand, however, I also empathise with the man who had to hide an aspect of his sexuality because most people not only look down on it, but also actively condemn it. It is tempting to look at the situation as a conflict between the rights of a woman inside a marriage and the rights of a gay man. However, such an evaluation could lead to a conclusion that grants greater victimhood to one party over another, which is simplistic and ignores the nuances and complexities of such a situation.

Women take the blame

In these cases, both man and woman were victims of a culture where people are expected to be married, bear children, acquire property, and contribute to the growth of the family lineage.

For the woman, being married to a homosexual man puts her under great emotional distress, more so in a culture where women are habitually blamed and are also conditioned to take on the blame. If there is no sexual intimacy , they blame themselves; if there are no children, they again blame themselves. All this results in very low self-esteem and acts as a trigger for emotional and mental health issues.

It is worsened if there is physical and mental cruelty inflicted by the husband or his family. While there are laws that protect women from such situations, it often takes a long time for women to recognise, acknowledge, and come to terms with the violence and cruelty before they can seek legal remedy. In most cases, by the time they seek legal recourse, much of the damage is already done in the form of mental and physical cruelty. Men, homosexual or otherwise, are also under great pressure to get married. It is rarely seen as connected to one’s sexuality or sexual orientation, but only as an institution that has social importance with little personal significance. For instance, when a homosexual man comes out, his parents are likely to insist that he get married and work out “arrangements” outside the marriage.

Men also face the threat of being disowned and disinherited by their families if they do not comply with their wishes. Another fear articulated by some gay men is that the law is against them, with the Supreme Court of India reaffirming the constitutionality of Section 377, which criminalises certain sexual acts.

However, the judgement of the apex court also states that the section only criminalises certain sexual acts and not particular people, identities or orientations. Thus, no one can be charged under Section 377 for being gay.

Tremendous progress was made after the 2009 judgement of the Delhi High Court that had held Section 377 in its current form as bad law. After this judgement, numerous support spaces, organisations, magazines and events for queer persons were established and continue to exist and function despite the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgement. All that was done after 2009 has not been undone; and homosexual persons, their families, and spouses should be encouraged to access these spaces.

Better law still needed

Having said that, the fear of persecution using Section 377 continues, and all efforts must be taken to amend the law suitably to exclude consenting adults. Thus, it may be argued that a gay man and a heterosexual woman in a marriage are both victims of a society that privileges heterosexuality and reinforces heterosexual marriage as the norm. However, it must be noted that a cisgendered, gay man has certain privileges that neither heterosexual nor lesbian women are likely to have. Despite being in a marriage, he is more likely to be economically independent and have enough physical independence as well to continue to have relationships outside of the marriage. On the other hand, a woman’s autonomy is severely compromised by marriage, and if she is in a bad marriage, it leaves her doubly disadvantaged. The odds are stacked further against lesbian women coerced into marriage with straight men.

In order to combat the problems that arise out of such relationships, it is necessary to first address and question marriage as it is perceived today. The contours of relationships within marriages or otherwise are set a priori outside of the lives, interests and habits of the individuals concerned. The ideals of how a marriage ought to be are prescribed by sociocultural norms dictated by heteronormativity and patriarchy, thus leaving no scope for individuals to set their own terms for the relationship. This situation is aggravated by the institution of arranged marriages, which provides little or no space for conversations between the man and woman. Gender roles are predetermined and the reasons for the marriage dictated beforehand. These set rules undoubtedly favour the man, thus putting him in a place of power and privilege within the marriage relationship, and adversely affecting the woman.

The issue of forced marriages of homosexual persons are akin to forced marriages of any kind. Thus, it becomes vital to relook at marriages per se and emphasise the ideals of transparency, communication and honesty from the start.
Click to expand...
 
Gannicus said:
The second half of the 1960s was definitely a golden era for United. I should have written "40 years ago" when pretty much everything, including United's fortunes, was shit, with the exception of Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.
Click to expand...

:lol: Sorry. I just couldn't pass that opportunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.