Gay marriage

[Bobby Digital]

Do to the enforcement of a technicality, I am forced to repost this yet again!

I posted this in response to another topic, but that topic seems to be dying, so I'm creating a new one, because I spent a while on this and I want to discuss this issue.

I realize this is a touchy subject; I want to articulate the conservative argument against gay marriage in a form that is rarely presented on these boards--elements of this argument surface from time to time here, but I've never seen the case itself stated in it's entirety. I don't necessarily agree with it to the extent that conservatives do; after I articulate it I will indicate the extent to which I agree with it's concerns, so please take that to be my stance rather than what follows here:

Genuine conservatives value social institutions that are benificial to society. They believe that marriage is such an institution. Furthermore, they believe that the original function of marriage for a man and a woman to dedicate themselves to concieving and raising children. They further assert that the original purpose of marriage law--that is, the state's recognition and sanctioning of a marriage--was to encourage this process. They see healthy society as built on a foundation of this marriage and family system, and they see gay marriage as a threat to this social arrangement--but why?

To understand why, you have to see gay marriage in the context of a larger objection that they hold towards the way that society's perception of the value of sexual relations has changed in recent years. What they object to is the growing idea that sex itself is primarily about pleasure and not about creating children. With this comes the notion that marriage is about LOVE rather than FAMILY. In other words, marriage is now recognized as a commitment between two adults as an expression of their love for each other, rather than as an expression of their dedication to create and raise a family. Certainly, the existence of love is necessary for a good and effective marriage; what is being objected to here is the collective loss of the second sense of marriage, which is, according to the conservative argument, the main reason marriage exists as a state sanctioned institution in the first place. Now, every argument FOR gay marriage naturally hinges on the idea that certain homosexual couples love each other and thus deserve the same state sactioned acceptance of that love, and all the rights that come with it, as heterosexual couples. Thus the case for gay marriage presupposes love as the foundation and purpose of marriage, and by doing so undermines society's perception of the real purpose of marriage--the dedication to raising children. Thus the arguments for gay marriage constantly reinforce an idea that conservatives believe is destructive to society: that sexual relationships are about love and pleasure, rather than creating a family.

Conservatives see the degredation of marriage as at the heart of many social problems, which is probably why liberals have a hard time understanding the seriousness that conservatives place on this issue. For liberals tend to see social problems as stemming from existing, broad power structures more than from individual, systemic causes. I think that this is one of the main reasons that liberals and conservatives tend to disagree on so much--but this is another issue for another time.

Now for my take on all of this: I think that the conservative concerns about the social consequences of gay marriage are real and should be taken into account, but at the same time I think that fairness demands that the requests of homosexuals for a state sanctioned recognition of their partnership (with all the rights that come with it) should be met. How this is accomplished legally is not something I am familiar with so I'll leave those details for others. I only ask that they do three things to appease the conservatives:
(1) Express your understanding of the fact that heterosexual marriage is a different thing with a different purpose, and that you understand and respect that purpose.
(2) Stop calling it marriage. Ask for "civil unions," or whatever, but please don't call it marriage. The name of something has a lot to do with how a society perceives that thing, and by calling something else by that name you may change the nature of the thing itself--you may not believe this but at least respect it. It is a trivial point for you and of great importance to many others.
(3) Stop making the argument that people oppose gay marriage out of bigotry. This may be true in some cases, or for all I know most cases, but it is an unfair claim to place on those who do not oppose gay marriage for that reason. If you continue to see this as the sole reason for the opposition to gay marriage, then the issue will never be resolved.

For those homosexuals who want gay marriage to exist for the purpose of adopting and raising their own children, obviously everything that is said above does not apply so well, and this must be discussed seperately.

[NicoleM]

1. Why are we supposed to

appease conservatives? I'm not sure I understand that part of your argument.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

2. The problem is a semantic one. Gay unions must be called marriage

or they'll be percieved as second-class. That's the problem. It may well be perception, but a society that accepts homosexuals will accept gay marriage. One that doesn't is just paying them lip service.

[ronnykmarshall]

6. Thank YOU!

You took the words right out of my mouth.

If "marriage" is such hands off word for us EVIL homersexuals, they might want to exclude Britney Spears from using it as well.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

10. This is a litmus test.

Personally, I don't see what affect or influence on my marriage somebody else's marriage has. Why should I care if a gay couple wishes to be married? What possible impact does that have on my own heterosexual relationship? What is this fear of gay marriage? Let's try and get at the roots of it.

[ulysses]

13. yes.

Let's try and get at the roots of it.

Isn't it simply fear of the "other"? The rationalizations surrounding opposition to gay marriage are paper-thin. Over time we've spent quite a bit of time around gay couples, and, other than the agreement between Ms Uly and myself that we need to spend *more* time around them because we see in many of those relationships the things we value most in our own, it's affected us not a whit.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

15. There's a condescension to the argument

The anti-marriage argument sounds to me like adults handing a toy to some unruly children. Here's your toy marriage, not the real thing of course, now be happy we deemed to give you it. I am an egalitarian, and as an egalitarian I must believe in equality across sex, gender, race or creed. What is the point in establishing a second class of marriage?

[ulysses]

3. let's boil this down, shall we?

Thus the case for gay marriage presupposes love as the foundation and purpose of marriage, and by doing so undermines society's perception of the real purpose of marriage--the dedication to raising children. Thus the arguments for gay marriage constantly reinforce an idea that conservatives believe is destructive to society: that sexual relationships are about love and pleasure, rather than creating a family.

I'm a straight man, married for ten years and shooting blanks as a result of treatments for cancer when I was eleven. My wife and I can't create a family in the biological sense any more than a gay couple can.

Should we not be married, much less trying to adopt? Is my marriage to Ms Uly "destructive to society" and, if so, how? If not, how is it any different from the marriage of a gay couple if the point of marriage is the raising of a family?

[ulysses]

14. I'd really like an answer here, btw.

Should I not have gotten married, being unable to father children biologically? Is my stable, ten-year marriage somehow destructive of the very institution because of my low sperm count?

Looking forward to your reply.

[arwalden]

19. <Crickets Chirping>

http://www.brandens.net/files/Sounds/FX/Animals/CRICKET.WAV

[Wonk]

22. Paging Bobby Digital. Bobby Digital to the white courtesy keyboard, please

or was this simply a drive by thread posting?

[ulysses]

37. he put so much effort into it, too

With the first one locked and all.

Bobby, we hardly knew ye...

[MissB]

4. Part of the conservative argument, as you've put it, boils down to this:

Marriage is for having children.

Another way conservatives say this is: Marriage is an institution that God put in place so that man and woman can procreate.

Ignored, of course, are those couples that marry and do not procreate. Or those that get married outside of a religious institution.

I would think the conservatives would be just as concerned about those two instances, and yet, I fail to see (or hear) the conservatives wailing on and on about those situations.

It is far too easy to see that the conservative argument against gay marriage hinges on fear or hatred. The other issues put forth are just cover for the fear or the hatred.

[Terran]

17. If one could point toward any legal document...

...that upholds this idea that marriage is "supposed" to be for the purpose of procreation, then I might consider it a valid idea. But otherwise, it's just a societal perception. I'm not saying the idea is wrong or incorrect, but hell, things do change. Of course we still need children to perpetuate our socities, but I think it's a bit much, saying we must reserve marriage as the primary institutional basis for encouraging people to do that. Obviously a lot of people have kids without getting married.

Sorry, but I don't agree that we should appease the tiny minority who feel this way. 99% of people who get married do so primarily because they love one another, and that is what has changed from prior centuries. And there is plenty of governmental interest involved in encouraging loving marriages, because they last longer. That's true for straights and gays alike, which is why gay marriage will STRENGTHEN, not debase, the institution of marriage.

[readmylips]

26. 99% marry because they're in heat, passion....love the flesh.

If 99% married for love, we would only have 1% the divorce rate. How high is the divorce rate? Like 66% plus. I don't see the Fart KKKristian Right taking up the problem of divorce, which is a far worse problem for our society than Gays/Lesbians getting married, forming a union, whatever.

I think that almost every family in the USA has a gay/lesbian member in the family. Almost every family in the USA has been divorced once, twice or more times. So the millions of divorced in this country will set the moral rights for Gays/Lesbians.

[Terran]

51. LOL, I stand corrected

99% of people who get married do so because they think they're in love.

Howzat? :)

[Cannikin]

24. Lets not forget heterosexuals with very healthy sex lives...

but practice birth control...What does your ****** perspective into the conservative mind tell us about that?

[POed_Ex_Repub]

5. I personally had a nice catholic wedding...

But if somebody wants to get married in some other way, more power to them!

1) People get married for lots of different reasons, not just for children. Know any married couples that don't plan on having children? I sure do.

2) Why not call it marraige? If there is a church sanctioning it, it's a marriage. It may not be your church, but then we've got that wonderful thing called freedom of religion in this country.

3) Bigotry is not the sole reason (I mostly think it's religious reasons), but it certianlly is one of the reasons some people oppose gay marriage.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. I have seen this same argument presented by advocates of arranged marriage

and plural marriage: namely that the purpose of marriage is and should be first and foremost to produce children to inherit property.

It is a view that is more popular in the east than in the west, and its popularity has been a valuable tool in maintaining the idea of women as property, which has in recent years begun to fade, although the underlying belief is still very present, both in west and east.

While many Americans associate arranged and plural marriages with Islamic populations, it should be noted that the objections that some conservative Hindus have to honeymoons, Valentines, etc. are based on the same "marriage is not personal" premise.

Applied in the context of homosexuals who wish to marry, as the poster points out, it falls apart if the homosexuals in question seek to marry so that their children may inherit their property :)

[arwalden]

8. But I *WANT* To Call It A Marriage... I *WANT* To Be Seen As EQUAL.

I want all the rights and responsibilities and benefits and protections that come with a legally recognized marriage.

I WANT society to "perceive" me as an equal. I don't want to settle for less. I don't want to "pretend" to settle for less by calling it something else. --- I don't want them to BELIEVE I settled for something less because I caved in and stopped calling it "marriage".

I appreciate your sincere words... but there's more at stake. The "different but the same" approach you're suggesting has a haunting familiarity of "separate but equal". --- It's not identical, but it's close enough to make me feel uncomfortable.

-- Allen

[ulysses]

40. want, want, want

Have procreative sex and ye shall receive. ;-)

[mitchtv]

103. I understand you completely and support our goal, But..

after 28 years , and the money spent to "memorialize"our non marriage, a little voice keeps cring out "I don't need no stinkin marriage" it is especially loud during Brittany, and Trista stories. There is always the thought that somday there will be some legal loophole we neglected to close.

[RandomKoolzip]

9. So people who are born homosexual (y'know, ALL of 'em)

Should just forget about ever having relationships and the benefits straight people enjoy from them? Is it just a semantic thing that's crawlin' up yer ass?

MY problem with the conservative position on homosexuality is that a) it's none of their goddmaned business what two people do in private, b)the base their views on a supposition that homosexuality is "a lifestyle choice," and c)marriages between men and women aren't always the wonderful, sanctified unions convos make 'em out to be. There's often domestic violence, child molestation, simmering resentment, etc. under the hunky dory facade. If every man got married to every woman, and they all had kids and stayed together long enough to raise them to college age, what makes you think society would improve?

[Democrats unite]

11. Marriage is comming (note I didn't say civil unions) to the GLBT...

And there is not a damn thing the neocons can do about it & it's pissing them off! The reason marriage will come, beacuse it is the right thing for the right reasons, and nothing is going to stop it.

[Cocoa]

12. did you hear about the Britney Spears marriage?

that's the sacred institution that conservatives are afraid will be degraded?

[Bobby Digital]

86. no

And it's dispicable, and horrible for the institution of marriage.

[Cocoa]

88. bullshit

what she did has no effect on anything, other than exploding the "sanctity of marriage" crap you and the people you follow put out.

[Bobby Digital]

91. sure it does

She's a cultural icon, and people emulate her behavior. The irony of this is that the consequences of the destruction of marriage as an institution are taken by you to be something that invalidate the case for it.

[Cocoa]

93. more bullshit

the mere fact that a drunk can get married on the spur of the moment completely destroys the argument you faithfully reproduced from whatever conservative source you got it from.

You people can't answer Margaret Cho's very good question: why can't gays get married by an Elvis Impersonator like straights can?

[debkakes]

16. the sanctity of marriage

this is what is wanting protection from evil gay love? (thank you Salon.com)

Drew Barrymore and Tom Green: wed July 2001, split December 2001. Total time hitched: five months, which was longer than her first marriage, to Jeremy Thomas for less than one month back in 1994.

Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman: wed November 1998, split March 1999. Total time hitched: five months, though Rodman did initially try to get the marriage annulled after just nine days.

Lisa Marie Presley and Nicolas Cage: wed August 2002, split November 2002. Total time hitched: three months 15 days. Presley even managed to stay married to Michael Jackson for longer than that -- 20 months.

Jennifer Lopez and Cris Judd: wed October 2001, split July 2002. Total time hitched: eight months, which was even less time than she was married to her first husband, Ojani Noa (13 months).

Shannen Doherty and Richard Salomon: wed February 2002, split November 2002. Total time hitched: nine months -- longer than her first marriage, to Ashley Hamilton for five months, but much shorter than Salomon's infamy for the amateur porn video he made with Paris Hilton.

Courtney Thorne-Smith and Andrew Conrad: wed June 2000, split January 2001. Total time hitched: seven months -- they were separated by the time their wedding was featured on the cover of InStyle magazine.

Helen Hunt and Hank Azaria: wed July 1999, split June 2000. Total time hitched: 11 months. Mad about you? Not.

Jim Carrey and Lauren Holly: wed September 1996, split June 1997. Total time hitched: nine months.

Charlie Sheen and Donna Peele: wed September 1995, split February 1996. Total time hitched: four months, 24 days.

[arwalden]

18. P.S. "Marriage" & "Married" Are Legal Terms, Not Just Religious Ones...

As an atheist, I care not about having a "church wedding" or a "religious ceremony" to "sanctify" my "holy union".

That's a battle for the religious and their churches to deal with later (or sooner... whatever works for them... I don't care.)

I don't care a whit for the pomp and circumstance of it all. (Well... okay, the reception and gifts might be nice.) But the most important thing are the legal acceptance, protections, and benefits that will be afforded to gay couples who choose to marry. When a couple is in crisis or in time of need, Queer Americans clearly have FEWER rights than Straight Americans.

-- Allen

[Cannikin]

21. "which is probably why liberals have a hard time"

Bobby did you copy and paste all of that or come up with it yourself?

I thought you were a liberal?

Bobby? Hello?

This is the second time I've seen him start a lively debate like this...and both times...it smelled of TROUBLE.

[Bobby Digital]

95. answers

I came up with it myself.
My refering to liberals in the the third person doesn't place me outside of them any more than my many such references to conservatives places me outside of that philosophy. There are certain things I am "liberal" about and certain things I am "conservative" about. I've chosen to bring up the conservative issues purely for the sake of debate.
My topics get popular for a reason: these are important issues that deserve discussion, and I present a largely dissenting opinion in terms of the makeup of this board. If this isn't the place for discussion I'll take my efforts elsewhere--perhaps I was wrong in assuming people here were interested in a "lively debate."

[DrWeird]

20. You give conservatives too much credit.

They don't care about marriage anymore than anybody else. So why fight homosexual marriage?

Because they're homophobes. Why? Because their natural bigots, they fear change, that's why they're called conservative, especially when it comes to race mixing, non christians, and homosexuals. Why homosexuals in particular? They're an easy target, it's a lot harder to get away with hating blacks nowadays. I doubt it has anything to do with that obscure Bible quote, God knows they don't spend their time reading the Bible.

[readmylips]

23. The Fart Right wants to dictate morality per Religion....

and crap on people's Constitutional Rights. Cheney can't stop his own lesbian daughter from sleeping with another lesbian woman. The Fart Right wants to pick and choose when it comes to religions and Constitutional rights. They love to take the high moral distorter view based on THEIR own religious beliefs, which is suppost to be based on kkkristianity.

Last time I checked, there are over one thousand different christian sects in the US. The kkkristianity being pushed down our throats are Robertson's, boosh's (have to laugh about his beliefs), Fartwell's, and Bob Jones'. The reality is that what those clowns are pushing is raw politics. Only racism, money and power are in their souls. God and Jesus are absent from their hearts.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

25. Yes these things should be writen into homosexual

civil uniuon ceremonies:

STATE CIVIL UNION MAN: Do you understand that heterosexual marriage
is a different thing than homosexual civil unionizing, with a
different purpose, and do you understand and respect that purpose?

HOMOSEXUALS: Yes, we do.

SCUM: Will you never call your civil union "marriage"?

H: We will never call it marriage.

SCUM: Will you stop making the argument that people oppose gay marriage out of bigotry?

H: Yes, we will stop.

SCUM: Do you understand that *marriage* is about FAMILY and not
LOVE and that is the reason that you cannot be *married* but can
be *civilly unionized*?

H: Yes, we do.

SCUM: Do you understand that the case for gay marriage presupposes love as the foundation and purpose of marriage, and by doing so undermines society's perception of the real purpose of marriage--the dedication to raising children?

H: Yes, we understand.

SCUM: Do you understand and regret that the arguments for gay marriage constantly reinforce an idea that conservatives believe is destructive to society: that sexual relationships are about love and pleasure, rather than creating a family?

H: Yes, we do.

SCUM: I now pronounce you unionized. You may shake hands.

[Cannikin]

27. Xenophobe:

NOUN: A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

Xenophobia
Noun: Extreme dislike or fear of foreigners, their customs, their religions, etc.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

44. Readophobe:

NOUN: A person unduly fearful of reading too carefully lest he/she comprehend the meaning of what was written.

[RandomKoolzip]

28. We are so stupid!

Why do we always fall for this drive by shit?? Does anybody expect Mr. Digital (nice way of covering your conservative ass, Bobby- pick a name referenced to hip hop, that way you'll never get called a racist republican, BTW....) to respond? Of course not. He's probably copying all of this over at FR right now, so he's too busy to respond to all of our replies.

Dammit, duped again.....

Shit.

[MissB]

29. He has come back before.

He has a post from several days ago, asking whether or not he should post here.

I expect he'll be back.

[RandomKoolzip]

30. They said the same shit about Jesus and Quetzilcoatl....

n/t

[MissB]

31. LOL! Good point (nt)

[Cannikin]

32. Check out Bobby's other good thread.."What is a progressive"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=981142

I **** ****** ***** ** is here for a purpose ***** **** to show ** support..

[DrBB]

33. Hate to burst your "procreation" bubble Digital boy

...but lots of us heteros out here are married without children. Myself included. Should I consider my marriage somehow "less" a marriage because it's not about procreation? Sorry, I can't oblige you there. Want us to stop having sex, since we're not producing babies? Sorry, I don't think I'll oblige on that one either.

And it isn't any less of a marriage just because some gay friends of mine want to do it too.

Why ARE you people so threatened by this?

[Cannikin]

36. If I may call a meeting of the 'Tin Hatters' for a moment.....

Do you think Bobby is a mearly a freeper, or someone more intelligent, like a Bush flunkie type...testing the waters to see if we are willing to compromise with a civil union law. Or a Rove flunkie gathering intelligence to counter pro-gay marriage arguments?


Make's you go Hmmmmm......:tinfoilhat:

[RandomKoolzip]

43. Or a third choice...which I will not say out of fear of getting deleted.

Needless to say, it rhymes with "Mass Pole." That's how I'm voting.

[Bobby Digital]

104. you guys are so paranoid

I'm just a human being with different views than you.

[RandomKoolzip]

114. Jeez, what reason would "us liberals" have to be paranoid?

It's not like our leaders keep getting mysteriously assassinated, our rightfully won elections stolen from us, our states redistricted, our opinions ridiculed day after day in the media, our legacy shat upon, or our message boards infiltrated by freepers or anything....

[buddhamama]

34. yeah, and women were forced into marriage

essentially slaves to their husbands as were the kids; who were seen as essential to the family's (the males especially) not for procreation exactly (it wasn't about passing on the family genes or continuing the race) it was for the purpose of putting them to work.
again, slaves. free labor.

factor in the whole no one but the male has right's crap
and no birth control and you got yourself, over time, a workforce.



gotta love the sanctity

and by all means let's respect conservatives on this

[A-Schwarzenegger]

35. I believe the leopard skin furniture maker for Anna Nicoll Smith

was named Bobby Digital. He seemed very
liberal on that real TV show.

[Cannikin]

38. I've seen a few episodes of the show.....

But I fail to recall the decorator giving any of his political views. Please tell me! I'm sure it was entertaining!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

42. He often carried Manufacturing Consent

around with him while designing furniture and
he wore a T-shirt with a Chomsky quote on it that said:
"The structure of language
determines not only thought,
but reality itself."

[ronnykmarshall]

46. That's Bobby Trendy

and he's a pompus asshole.

[DrWeird]

39. Attention everybody: do not accuse others of being a freeper.

Besides, it makes it more fun when you see the tombstone.

[Cannikin]

41. I apologize for my premature McCarthyism...

I removed my freeper reference...

[ulysses]

45. kick for Bobby

I'm told he'll be back.

[put out]

47. Will he please explain his position to me, again?

And again? And again? And again? I simply am too dim to understand it unless it is pounded into my thick skull over and over, during the course of several days and a few threads. Maybe the 18th time I read it, the light will finally dawn on me, "Oh, he's been right all along! How could we all have been so blind?"

Sorry, but I have been forced to spend too much time with people who are somehow convinced that if they explain their position long enough and loud enough, everyone will eventually agree. I certainly do enjoy everyone's responses. Now, there's some genuine food for thought.

[ulysses]

48. maybe, if you ask nicely and if

he does, in fact, show back up.

[foreigncorrespondent]

49. Bobby Digital, I do NOT like you!

And yes, this reply is also a repost, seem as how you don't check back with the original thread. Which BTW can be found here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=986095

And your lame excuse in the other (read vanity) thread you started just to give us your miracle answer to gay marriage is one of the biggest piles of crap I have ever seen. And further, you just took a dump in mine and every single other queers face, who happens to wonder these boards looking for a little sign that the times are indeed changing, and American attitude is moving into the 21st century.

Genuine conservatives value social institutions that are benificial to society. They believe that marriage is such an institution. Furthermore, they believe that the original function of marriage for a man and a woman to dedicate themselves to concieving and raising children. They further assert that the original purpose of marriage law--that is, the state's recognition and sanctioning of a marriage--was to encourage this process. They see healthy society as built on a foundation of this marriage and family system, and they see gay marriage as a threat to this social arrangement--but why?

Well gee! That is something we never knew about. NOT!

Saving the sacntity of marriage so that people can concieve and raise children is all fine and dandy, so long as the law is enforced to not allow people who are sterile and cannot concieve in the first place cannot marry. Futher, people that don't intend to have children in a marriage shouldn't be allowed to marry as well. This argument is pure discrimination and unfortunately government approved discrimination.

Now, every argument FOR gay marriage naturally hinges on the idea that certain homosexual couples love each other

Excuse me! "Certain" homosexual couples love each other. WTF! Well gee some heterosexuals certainly don't love one another, but they are still allowed to marry. The recent Spears marriage only proves this.

Stop calling it marriage. Ask for "civil unions," or whatever, but please don't call it marriage.

Anything less than marriage is infact discrimination. As a queer who has seen the worst of discrimination the United States has to offer, I can tell you, I am sick to death of being forced to sit on the back of the bus while life passes me by.

I am sick to death of not being able to make a home with the love of my life in her country (The United States of America. The so called land of the free) because her country will not allow her to sponsor me for immigration.

Life is too short to spend it at the back of the bus. One misses so much.

How dare you ask that us queers continue to sit at the back fo the bus and continue to do so, without so much as a whimper.

Stop making the argument that people oppose gay marriage out of bigotry. This may be true in some cases, or for all I know most cases, but it is an unfair claim to place on those who do not oppose gay marriage for that reason.

ROFLMAO! What a lame excuse. Tell me if it isn't about bigotry then what is it about?

Bobby, I really believe you need to take a look at what your wrote. I also believe you need to put yourself into a queer persons shoes for a while, just so you can see how bloody rediculous your argument actually is.

Do not preach to me that what you said is the conservative argument, because you know what? You wouldn't have thought us here at DU so stupid as to not understand what the conservative argument is all about, if you didn't have the same or similar belief that the conservatives do.

If you want to know how it feels to be forced to live 8,000 miles from my partner, because the only way I could be with my partner at this time is to live in her country, I would gladly tell you. I will tell you how it felt Christmas morning to wake up and have it feel like just another day, because the love of my life isn't with me. Even though, Christmas had been one of my favorite times of year all my life. I will gladly tell you how it felt at midnight on New Years Eve and not my partner with me, to give her a kiss to bring in the New Year.

If you want to know how it feels to be told you can't marry the person you love more than life itself because you are indeed a sinner and are going to hell, I will gladly tell you that as well.

<sarcasm> Thank you for the first anti gay fight for 2004. I truly appreciate it so close in the New Year. </sarcasm>

[Terran]

58. Great reply...

...to an extraordinarily clueless post. This part really kills me:

Stop making the argument that people oppose gay marriage out of bigotry. This may be true in some cases, or for all I know most cases, but it is an unfair claim to place on those who do not oppose gay marriage for that reason.

Um, okay Bobby...you appear to admit the possibility that most people who oppose gay marriage do so on grounds of bigotry...and despite that, we're just supposed to let that go by because there are a few people (like you, apparently) who have cooked up some half-assed intellectual argument about why gay marriage is bad...so it's not bigotry. Shit. Sounds kinda like a non-bigoted argumented for why Black people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[greekspeak]

115. Preach on sister!

Hugs from the choir! :grouphug: What I have with my BF is more sincere and real than what a lot of married heterosexuals have. Stay out of our business digital

[Nobody]

50. But what about my newlywed Republican cousin?

He has had a vasectomy after the birth of his last child by his first wife. Should his marriage be nullified?

I also have a couple of friends who got married a few years ago. They are both past 50 and the woman is post menopausal. No pregnancy can occur here either.

Maybe a long time ago marriage was nothing more than a property transfer, but nowadays marriage is about two people who love each other and want to commit to spending the rest of their lives together.

Marriage has and always will evolve to fit the times. It isn't even that long ago that a married woman couldn't even own property.

[Bobby Digital]

52. The response you've all been waiting for

Sorry I'm late with this response--I spent the last two hours on the phone with sprint trying to resolve a technicality that was preventing me from paying my phone bill.

There have been a lot of responses and I don't have time to address each one individually, but I'll try to get at the general concerns I'm seeing here.

First, I want to clear up a misperception. I thought I made it clear that I was only explaining the position, and not specifying to what extent I agree with it. All I really said was that the argument itself raises valid concerns that should be looked at seriously. I then suggested an approach that could be taken towards arguments for gay marriage that would satisfy the demands of those who want it, and at the same time show a little concern for the conservative position on this matter. One of my suggestions was to not call it "marriage" in the case of homosexual unions, to which some responded that calling it marriage is the only way to preserve "equality." I don't think equality is at stake here--a gay person has the same rights as a straight person. What he or she is asking for is a new right--a right to join in a union a man or a woman respectively, and gain certain rights through that union. If some people want that ability than so be it. But this sort of thing has never existed before, so why should we call it by the same name as something that is already in existence? We have to think about what is really being asked for here--same sex unions are not just a natural extension of civil rights. They are a genuine evolution of the law, and I am prepared to accept that change (how many conservatives will tell you that?) but I think we should at least be honest about what we are doing here. We are creating a new category of civil law to accomodate certain people.

Secondly, I'll address ulysses' concern by clarifying something about the conservative argument that might clear up other concerns as well. The worry about gay marriage is not, believe it or not, about the legal question of whether or not gays can join in a union that affords them certain rights. It is about how marriage and sexuality are percieved by the public, and what consequences the push for gay marriage has for this perception. You can agree or disagree to whatever extent you want about the value to society of the conservative's ideal vision of what this perception should be. And you can agree or disagree about the extent to which the push for gay marriage or gay marriage itself might affect that perception. But that is what is at stake in this discussion, and nothing else. So lets put the fact that ulysses is able to marry a woman and yet unable to have children in this context. Once we do we see that his example can tell us something about the extent to which one agrees with the conservative position. I believe that ulysses getting married in spite of his inability to have children is absolutely harmless to the institution of marriage (this is my answer to his question). I don't see how one could think otherwise--there is no push for a redefinition of marriage, but simply a couple that married under the normal laws and is unfortunately unable to have kids. The extent to which you think that gay marriage would mirror ulysses situation is the extent to which you disagree with the conservative postion.

For those of you that flamed me with wild accusations (someone even claimed that my name was an attempt and deception!--I assure you, I am genuinely a huge hip-hop fan), please refrain from doing so any further--it clutters up the post and hinders my ability to engage in genuine discussion with those who would like to participate.

[NicoleM]

53. Couple questions:

1. Re: I don't think equality is at stake here--a gay person has the same rights as a straight person.

¿Que? Can a gay person marry his/her partner the same way I married mine?

2. Re: I then suggested an approach that could be taken towards arguments for gay marriage that would satisfy the demands of those who want it, and at the same time show a little concern for the conservative position on this matter.

Why do I want to show concern for the conservative position on this matter? The conservative position is WRONG.

[Bobby Digital]

73. well that's the trouble

"1. Re: I don't think equality is at stake here--a gay person has the same rights as a straight person.

¿Que? Can a gay person marry his/her partner the same way I married mine?"
Both a gay and a straight person can marry a person of the opposite sex. Obviously gay people do not want to pursue this option, but they do have the "same" rights. When you define a person by their sexual preference, then "rights" take on a different meaning because the option to marry means something different for a gay person. So gay people don't have the same choice as straight people, but only because the choice itself is a different choice. Redefining marriage would solve this problem--that is the very issue at stake. I'm trying to show why conservatives object to it.

[DrWeird]

80. Here's a concept:

Straight people are able to marry the people that they love.

Gay people are not allowed to marry the people that they love. Why not? As far as I can tell it's because conservatives are heartless bigots who want big government to tell people who they can and cannot consider their family.

[foreigncorrespondent]

102. Bobby where are you getting your facts?

From FreeRepublic?

How does the LGBT community have the same fucking rights as their heterosexual counterparts?

If that was the case then right now, I would be in the United States making love to my partner instead of being here arguing for my rights as a human being.

We do NOT have the same rights buddy!

[foreigncorrespondent]

55. I understand bloody well...

...that you were basing your argument on the so called conservative fears, and trying to make us dumb ass liberals and queers understand that, but guess what Bobby? You treated us like we are stupid, and you are wrong for doing so.

I am a queer woman who happens to have lived a straight life for most of my life. In the last few years I have certainly learnt what discrimination is all about. I have also listened to conservatives hold judgement of me, because I happen to be in love with another woman. I have read countless anti gay crap, so I do consider myself well versed in the conservative argument against my right as a person to live my life how I was bloody well born to.

The whole problem with your argument is, you showed at the end your very own conservative feelings towards this very tender issue.

What gives you the right to tell me to sit at the back of the bus, and shut up, and just accept a civil union over marriage?

What gives you the right to judge a person, any person? Are you God?

[Bobby Digital]

85. you're being too harsh

I've made no assumptions about anyone's intelligence. I do not judge your lifestyle.
What I'm trying to demonstrate is how this is one of those situations in which a conflict of interest leads to misperceptions. Certain straight people see a social value to the institution of marriage as being defined in terms of a man and a woman. Certain gay people want the same rights as straight couples who marry. I am trying to resolve the issue. Part of that is to encourage discussion, but if you refuse to talk to me and only condemn me and my motives, then this will go nowhere.

[foreigncorrespondent]

94. I'm not refusing to talk to you...

...hell I made you an offer in my first reply that I would gladly tell you how it feels to be queer and discriminated against.

The only thing I have hidden is the fact of who my partner is (also a DUer) for quite a while, because my partner and I wanted to be judged as two single people, not as a couple who are joined at the hip. Apart from that, I have always been very open and honest and told anyone who would listen exactly how it feels to be living 8,000 miles from my partner.

But you have made assumptions on our intelligence here at DU, simply by bringing the conservative argument here. We are not stupid Bobby, we know what the conservative argument is, and quite frankly, we have refuted that argument time and time again, in many heated debates over gay marriage.

[AntiCoup2K4]

108. "Certain straight people" once thought it was wrong to "mix races"

Hell, at Bob Jones University, it's still an official policy. They were and are hateful bigots, they were and are wrong, and the argument against gay marraige has not an ounce more merit than that against inter-racial relationships.

[Cocoa]

83. you articulate conservative views in great detail

but you get kind of fuzzy when asked to state any progressive views.

I think you may be on the wrong forum.

[IronLionZion]

54. Very well said

I agree with you. Many liberals here are unwilling to see this issue from the conservative perspective. They don't understand how important the idea of straight marriage is to the majority of America. They don't see the huge difference between marriage and civil unions.

Campaigning for gay marriage means a Bush landslide as well. Because Republicans LOVE to throw gasoline on a fire and rally around a single winning issue.

[foreigncorrespondent]

57. Why are you and Mr Digital...

...intent on telling us we don't listen to the conservative argument?

As a queer, I gotta listen to the conservative argument, because that argument is about my very way of life, and I bloody well need to understand what they have against me, so I can teach tolerance and understanding.

We aren't as stupid as you and Bobby like to think we are.

[Bobby Digital]

63. see that's where your wrong

"I gotta listen to the conservative argument, because that argument is about my very way of life, and I bloody well need to understand what they have against me,"
The argument is primarily about their way of life, not yours. You are asking for an extension of something created by straight people, for straight people, to gays. They see this as a threat. I understand their concerns; you seem paranoid about my honesty in articulating their argument. I assure you I am only trying to reach a comprimise on this issue.

[foreigncorrespondent]

65. Excuse me!

The argument is primarily about their way of life, not yours.

But you are wrong, mate! They tell me I cannot marry the person I have chosen to spend the rest of my life with, because we are a same sex couple, and that isn't an infringement on my way of life?

Get a life, mate, and stay the fuck out of mine!

[put out]

71. It seems a shame to me,

that a poster would argue to "reach a compromise" on something that is strictly another person's life decision.

Here is my suggestion: you do it your way. I'll do it my way. He'll do it his way, and she'll do it her way. No need to compromise oneself. Consenting adults do not need my permission, nor my approval to live life as they see fit, with the full spectrum of human and civil rights.

[Bobby Digital]

77. how is an infringement?

I realize that your case is different because you are prevented from coming to the united states. My proposal for a non-marriage union, with all of the same rights, fixes this. No one is infringing on your way of life under my system--you get to spend the rest of your life with the one you love; all gay couples ought to have this option and most do. Your story, which I read last night, is one of the things that inspired my conciliatory stance on this, because I honestly hadn't considered the issue of immagration rights in relationshipt to marriage before.

[foreigncorrespondent]

98. Bobby!

You need to listen to what you are saying, and read what I am saying more clearly.

By giving me civil unions instead of marriage is clearly lip service and nothing more.

Like I said, I am sick of sitting at the back of the bus watching my life pass by, while all my heterosexual friends have their partners with them. Are organizing marriages and the like.

I do NOT want civil unions. And because I respect myself as a human being I will not accept anything less than marriage.

[DrWeird]

69. They used to say the same about interracial marriage.

What's the difference?

[DrWeird]

59. So tell us what the difference is between marriage and civil union.

Besides spelling.

[Bobby Digital]

72. thanks for the support

I don't seem to get much of that around here...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

79. And if you keep posting talking points

from the conservative playbook, don't expect the majority of DUers to support you. I thought you understood that from your very first post here? You asked whether you should bother, most said yes but put on your flame-retardent suit.

[Bobby Digital]

89. Look, believe it or not

I'm enjoying myself here. You guys give me a lot to think about, and I don't want to come off bitter. I don't expect to be supported, I just want discussion.

[AntiCoup2K4]

110. Republicans love to throw gasoline on a fire......

....sometimes on the front yards of people they think are "inferior"

[Crowdance]

56. Civil vs. Religious Marriage

In some European countries, folks marry twice. First they marry civilly, which makes for a legal union. They then marry religiously, which makes their marriage blessed in the eyes of their co-religious. That seems, to me, the perfect arrangement.

Civil marriage should be a right we all have access to. Religious marriage--well, each religion can do what they want. A religion that doesn't recognize gay marriage as legitimate doesn't have to perform them. It would certainly help separate the religious wheat from the chaff.

This true separation of church and state would serve us all, and make for an orderly solution to this horrible situation.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

60. Looks Like This Post Was A Drive-By

Is the poster still with us?

[NicoleM]

61. See #52.

It would be nice if the people who start these conversations actually participated in them.

[foreigncorrespondent]

62. I was thinking the same thing. (n/t)

[Bobby Digital]

64. I've typed like 1000 words so far in my two posts

I'm doing the best I can. I have to think through my responses and there are a lot of complexities. I want to address everything but it is hard with all this participation.

[DrWeird]

66. Take your time.

We know how long it takes to type with one finger.

[foreigncorrespondent]

68. DrWeird!

I thank you, from the bottom of my heart. I really needed the laugh your post gave me.

It came right at the right time.

[foreigncorrespondent]

67. Don't like participation...

...then don't make vanity posts on very hot topics.

[Bobby Digital]

74. I like participation

But I can't be faulted for not being able to keep up when participation is high.

[Cocoa]

90. looks cut and pasted

probably from a Dr. Laura book.

[Bobby Digital]

97. It's my own writing n/t

[Cocoa]

101. but it's not your thinking

this is transparently fake culture war crap cooked up in right wing labs.

Your time is passing, Bobby Digital. Bill Bennett, Dr. Laura and Rush Limbaugh have all been neutralized, and anyone that tries to fill their shoes will be seen the same way.

[jpgray]

70. LOL! Your caricatures of both conservatives and liberals are hilarious

This has to do with a general distaste for homosexuals. If that general distaste wasn't there, people could care less. Why else would somebody be up in arms about something that would have absolutely zero effect on their own affairs? What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage? Nothing legally? O-o-okay, so why should we call them different things? Remember South Carolina's ban on interracial marriage? Well, you can call these two instances of general distaste towards a minority group kissing cousins. :) They used the same exact reasoning you use above.

[Serenity-NOW]

78. my bad

oooops. sorry not a response to a response moved to respond to title.

[Mortos]

75. Explain the threat

Could someone please explain the threat that gay marriage would pose to heteros? I just don't get it. I really believe the opposition is based on the fact that some people (mainly conservatives/religious right wing) find homosexuality revolting and personally offensive. The revulsion they feel toward the act of homosexuality prohibits them from entertaining any acceptance of it...ever. Hell, if I was allowed to outlaw the joining together of people I find revolting, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich would never have been allowed to marry once, let alone three times...each!

[Wonk]

76. Hi! Welcome to DU :-)

:hi:

[jpgray]

81. Bingo. :-) See my post above, and welcome to DU! (nt)

[Jen]

84. The Country needs to allow gay marriage...

But I don't think it will happen nationally for years.

We need to concentrate on pushing the civil union laws and attacking those Dems that support the "Defense Of Marriage" act.

[Serenity-NOW]

82. Since when did marriage become about children?

This is a not too clever ruse devoid of historical realism.

The holy sanctity of marriage was invented by the church for landowners to consolidate property. Had diddly squat to do with love or children at its inception. Then during the industrial revolution marriage was extended to the working class because factory owners needed to make sure that people would make it to work. Since married folk tend to have larger bills than single folk they are presumed to be a tad more responsible about getting to the factory to work. Sanctity of marriage- blather blather blather- it's a bigot's argument in disguise. Go learn some history BD.

[Bobby Digital]

87. Marriage was invented by the church?

So how come it exists in practically every single non-western culture in existence?

[Serenity-NOW]

92. Bobby, you need to do your research about marriage

The notion that it exists in every culture is an invalid response. McDonald's and PepsiCola exists in nearly every culture, think, think, think.

[Bobby Digital]

96. regardless

Your "created by the church" argument is invalidated by the fact that it arose and existed in places where "the church" did not.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

99. It's about property

that's how marriage came into existence.

It's not about procreation.

[Serenity-NOW]

100. Was Pepsi or Mcdonald's invented in China?

Or did they adopt the product? Please think about this and do some research on it. Here's another, cars were invented where? And where do you find them today?

Regardless this is off topic. Marriage as understood today is not an ancient holy tradition.

[Bobby Digital]

105. Ok, I've had enough for tonight.

Sorry for all those I haven't yet responded to. Since everything I say gets a reply, I can't go on forever. I think I fucked this one up too...I tried to start an honest discussion and it became too heated

[Cocoa]

107. come back with more stuff copied from the National Review

see how long you can keep posting right wing propaganda before getting tombstoned.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

109. I thought it was copied too

from Dr. Laura perhaps, as you said earlier.

[Wonk]

111. "Target" usually gets the hint after a while and moves on.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame68.html

[Hippo_Tron]

106. People who oppose gay marrigae need to get a hobby...

The marriages of total strangers HAS NO EFFECT ON YOUR LIFE WHATSOEVER. Stop complaining about it like it's the end of the world if gay people get married.

[lapauvre]

112. Semantics....

As posted earlier, is the problem. Words or symbols. Symbols have meaning. Marriage, regardless of the arguments for or against the "God sanctioning" issue...when it started, or who cares...there is the completely understandable symbolic meaning to the word. Marriage!

There is no way to resolve this issue, imho, other than to do some legislative procedure, very complicated, to require employers, hospitals, law enforcement and every other bit of officialdom, to accept the "Civil Unions" as valid on a personal level as they are on a legal level.

This is not only a complicating factor for homosexuals. We Americans are adapting, through necessity or preference, to a number of economic, moral, and, with respect to biblical philosophy, alternative lifestyles.

Those conceiving children out of wedlock, both the so-called "welfare mothers, unwed mothers (like they did it on their own?), a multitude of average people, as well as celebrities, are creating children without benefit of the symbolic marriage.

So how do we get to have those we love to be at our bedside when we are dying? How do we provide for those who have been with us with love and devotion for years, when we die and our pensions cannot go to them when we do because we are not "married?"

If our loved ones are arrested for a traffic accident involving a death due to their reckless driving. Can those of us not married have a say? NO!

Can those we love and who love us not have a say in the matters of life and death; crime and punishment; survivorship; in preference to families who may or may not have abandoned them because of their choice of lifestyles.

I am elderly, heterosexual, and have a best friend who is the only one who cares for me (by cares for me, I mean that if I can't walk, he will help me. If I can't fix my food, he will fix it for me. And vice versa.) I have children who are far away and busy with their lives. But who has the sayso to visit me when I am dying. Who is here who will say "pull the plug" when they know that's what I want? My friend would, but he cannot. We are not "married." He is NOT a relative.

The law prohibits. Civil Unions cannot control employers, hospitals, law enforcement, insurance companies, a whole bunch of things.

What is to be done? I don't know.

If there is no marriage between a couple who produce offspring, who has the sayso as to who gets the children if one of them dies? You can leave your worldly possessions to a partner in a "Civil Union," but can you leave children?

I don't know.

This is a very complicated issue.

Marriage is the wrong symbolic word. Civil Unions do not fit in with current law to provide justice and compassion. So what will?

[srpantalonas]

113. 14th amendment.

don't complicate the issue. All citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law. case closed.

[Moderator]

116. Locking