The official 'Gay Marriage' thread.

Hello.

If you live in California like I do, then you've been hearing a lot about Proposition 8. If you don't, then let me break it down : recently, California has ruled in favor of Gay Marriage being recognized and for gay couples to be married in the State of California. However, a religious right group from outside of California has maneuvered their way into the State's political backdrop and for reasons beyond my political comprehension were able to propose a California proposition, Prop 8, which if voted Yes on, would make marriage defined in California as a bond between only a single man and a single woman, and if voted No on, would keep gay marriage legal and accessible to gay people in California.

Okay, that's done... but what I made this thread for is to discuss gay marriage. I want to know what people's stance on gay marriage is, and most importantly WHY that is their stance on it and I'd like people to be specific. I truly made this thread to understand the views of those against gay marriage. Here are my views and what I seem to understand so far on the controversy behind it.

I am pro gay marriage. I am also pro redefining marriage as a bond between two people, not simply a man and a woman. I see Civil Unions vs Marriage as comparable, though not quite to the extent of, to the Separate but Equal act and Jim Crow laws from American History. I don't see what the point is to giving gay people the same rights as married people with the only exception being that they can't use the term 'married'.

Here are the arguments I've heard from both Liberals and Conservatives, both extremes and moderates, plus my responses to them.

1) Marriage is defined as something and we don't want to change the definition. Why? Is it a religious thing? Why is private religion playing a role in political definition? Why does blind faith dictate someone else's life in our country which prides itself on the right to privacy and separation from religious prosecution?

2) Gay marriage is a gateway to incestuous marriage and bestiality. What is to say that we can't legally define marriage as a bond between two non-related human people? Why is bestiality even coming up when the current definition of marriage doesn't state anything about the married couple's species? Is this a real argument or a scare tactic for those who believe in constitutional freedom but need a reason to be against this cause because of social scrutiny or homophobic upbringings?

3) Gay people caused the southern California fires by being blasphemous against the word of God. Seriously? I could attribute any other natural disaster on sins against God for a variety of reasons. Not to mention that once again, blind faith doesn't dictate our lives in our country. Religious speculation holds no legal or political barring on us and this argument is made by irrational people in the first place.

4) Homosexuality threatens marriage and the lives of adopted children through homosexual parents. Children need the model of both a man and a woman to live a normal life. First, homosexuality threatens marriage? How? Is this argument to say that if homosexual marriage is legalized then we'd all be flocking to the same sex to marry one another? Wouldn't the problem with that not lie on the legalization of gay marriage but instead with the irresistibility in ourselves to flock to the same sex (provided that once gay marriage is legal, we all become gay...)? People fear that marijuana becoming legal will bring many more new marijuana smokers, so in the same sense that gay marriage threatens marriage, people think that because gay marriage becomes legal, their kids are gonna be gay because they can? Is that really a political problem? Also, studies on gay couples with children have been conclusive that children of gay parents aren't whacked in the head. If the argument is that gay parents cannot effectively raise a child to live in our society, then finding any contradictions to that rule would, speaking from a purely scientific point of view, negate that hypothesis. I have a very close friend who was raised by two gay parents and not only is she a normal human being today, but she is now one of the smartest and mentally healthiest persons I know. Yes, personal case matters don't hold relevance with most people, but all it takes to prove a scientific theory like 'gay people can't effectively raise a child' wrong is to prove that maybe it's not the 'gay' people in question, but in fact the specific 'people' who these fucked up children are coming from.

Anyway, I'd like to have a serious discussion whilst respecting everyone else's views on the topic as this can be a sensitive one. I'd like to understand both sides of the argument. I believe that neither side is necessarily wrong on the topic of abortion, yet gay rights is attributed as an equally sensitive taboo subject that we can't talk about because both sides are right to a certain degree yet I haven't figured out why both sides are right yet, so I want to talk about it. What are your views? Disagreements and counter-arguments are welcomed.

If you want to be a disrespectful little bitch to someone in my thread, I'll destroy you.

tl;dr

I'm fine with gay marriage.

Yeah, I really could care less either way. It doesn't affect me. I can see why people would want it, but why people are so adamant to stop it is beyond me.

I do not support gays rights to marry.  To me, marriage holds sacred religious vows that can be held by the union of a man and woman only.

However, I support an act if gays want to call it by another term, say, "Civil Union" or what have you, and that this union should endow the couple with the same rights a married couple would have.

To me, the use of "marriage" is what needs to be avoided.  Like how many people today believe the government should be independent of the church.  Well, they don't realize that the nation was founded and bound by religion.  America has become a melting pot since, and that's fine, but as far as heritage goes, religion and government did mix - there's just a sect today that feels they should not be.

I find it absolutely fine for two gay people to be recognized by the state as a joined union.  However, in the traditional religious sense, I don't see a Church deeming it correct.  But, that's their own reserve.  I, myself, support equal gay rights.

Reply to Aegis: Actually, the nation was definitely not founded on religious values. In fact, the settlers came here in search of freedom from religious prosecution. The framers created the constitution keeping in mind that religion should never be used against it's citizens which is most clearly described, though not only described, in the first amendment and was incorporated into law by the supreme court in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, which defined what we call today as the 'Lemon Test' being that "Every law must meet to avoid establishing religion" (Relethford). Saying that marriage must be defined by the government based on religious insight violates that incorporation of the law.

I disagree the whole sect function.
Didn't the goverment itself make attempts to seperate church and state.

I would also like to point out that I am also in favor of removing marriage all-together and instead allowing EVERYONE civil unions as opposed to marriage, because with the divorce rate in our country at 50% anyway, Civil Union seems like a more fitting description of what marriage has become in our country. However, I wont use that argument to rationalize that gays should be 'happy' they're not allowed to marry, because obviously they're not - it's either everyone gets married or everyone gets civil unions in my book.

Agreed with above posters.  In fact, many of the founding fathers were atheist.

I am for gay-marriages.  In my mind, to not allow it would be like not allowing two black people (or *gasp* an interracial couple) to get married.  To ban it is a form of discrimination and has no place in our laws.

To expand on your case against point 4:  If people are truly concerned about having both a mother and father role-model, then those same people should be fighting just as hard to ban divorces.  There are many studies showing the effects of divorce on children.

Like Aegis said, I think this whole debate could be avoided by making the term "marriage" a completely religious term, and the government would use "Civil Union" for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.  Then the churches can ban marriage however they please if it is against their religious beliefs, but it doesn't matter to anyone else because it is just a religious term.  Similar to how certain religions won't marry inter-faith couples.  It would take, however, an effort to change the general public's vocabulary to use Civil Union instead of marriage.