Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Gay marriage

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Dorian-Hawkmoon
    Denizen of Moo Uria
    • Aug 2008
    • 153

    Gay marriage

    Do you think is just for same-sex couples to marry? I think you can't discriminate love, really. And what do you think?
    52
    I'm fully for it!
    73.08%
    38
    I think gay couples union should be legally recognised, but not through "Marriage"
    17.31%
    9
    Other (specify)
    9.62%
    5
    Don't believe everything you hear, but not disbelieve anything, either
    Calanthe Har Aralis har Varr har Uigenna

    This is not the Tanelorn I was searching for
    Dorian Hawkmoon
  • Kyrinn S. Eis
    Psychwar Vet
    • Aug 2007
    • 2585

    #2
    Everyone should be equally prone to being miserable with their decision, as they are prone to being joyed for the rest of their togetherness.

    However, What's really in view are the legal rights to critical-care hospital visits, making important decisions, and having the rights of estate planning/oversight, etc. If the couple pays taxes and so forth, they ought to be afforded the same rights as
    aXy every other couple.

    As far as religious restrictions, that isn't the place for a state to meddle.

    Yes, you may quote me on that.
    Ani Maamin B'emunah Sh'leimah B'viyat Hamashiach. V'af al pi sheyitmahmehah im kol zeh achake lo b'chol yom sheyavo.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick

    Comment

    • Jolanthus Trel
      Apprentice wordsmith
      • Sep 2005
      • 914

      #3
      I have no problem with them having a legal union and the same rights. My one stumbling block is IVF. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children, so long as the can look after the child properly. IVF though is a different issue, it is meant for infertility. People who are having trouble concieving not through lack of trying not for people who are infertile through their lifestyle. (Though to be fair I also have the same arguement against 30 something single women using it, widowed women with are an exception providing it is their deceased partners produce.)
      Mutant Ill-Tempered Sea Bass Player

      Comment

      • Livebrain
        Denizen of Moo Uria
        • Jan 2007
        • 147

        #4
        Originally posted by Kyrinn S. Eis;136539However, What's really in view are the legal rights to critical-care hospital visits, making important decisions, and having the rights of estate planning/oversight, etc. If the couple pays taxes and so forth, they ought to be afforded the same rights as [/COLOR
        aXy every other couple.

        As far as religious restrictions, that isn't the place for a state to meddle.

        Yes, you may quote me on that.

        But that is the bone of contention; the issues are intertwined. The word "marriage" has so much religious baggage that it is hard for some people to get past the notion that it isn't so much about the religious aspect as it is the quality of life benefits that accrue with marriage (they aren't truly "rights' in the Constitutional sense of the word). With one exception that I can think of (the checking of the "married" box when filing of Federal taxes, and believe me that ain't anything to fight over) there are very few benefits that can't be realized another way. In other words, state-sanctioned marriage isn't the only way of achieving the desired ends here.

        Comment

        • McNevin
          Nac Mac Feegle
          • May 2008
          • 195

          #5
          Originally posted by Livebrain View Post
          With one exception that I can think of (the checking of the "married" box when filing of Federal taxes, and believe me that ain't anything to fight over) there are very few benefits that can't be realized another way. In other words, state-sanctioned marriage isn't the only way of achieving the desired ends here.
          That may be true in some ways, but the simplicity of a spousal relationship cuts through a lot of legal gymnastics to achieve those desired ends.

          That said, there is also a huge benefit to "legitimization" (in the legal sense) of gay marriage, and that is public recognition of social equality. As well as legal rights granted, there is the social, psychological and spiritual alleviation of "onus" status.
          McN

          "I learned: the first lesson of my life: nobody can face the world with his eyes open all the time." Salman Rushdie, 'Midnight's Children'

          Comment

          • aethercowboy
            Zombiologist
            • Sep 2007
            • 29

            #6
            There are two issues at hand here. One is marriage, and the definition thereof, and the other, gay rights.

            Basically, it should go like this:

            In America, we have a separation of church and state/freedom of religion, right?

            It's my opinion that marriage is or should be a religious observance, and thus, shouldn't be recognized by the state, and should be mandated by the various religions. If they want to allow it, that's their call.

            Now, the state should offer civil unions and give the current married tax benefits to couples there. And civil unions should be between a monogamous couple of consenting adults.

            That takes the whole issue of "morals" out of it, I'd think.
            The Gangster of L'Oeuf


            Elric had a little sword,
            Its blade was black as coal,
            And everyone that Elric killed,
            His sword would get a soul.

            Comment

            • Kyrinn S. Eis
              Psychwar Vet
              • Aug 2007
              • 2585

              #7
              Originally posted by Livebrain View Post
              But that is the bone of contention; the issues are intertwined. The word "marriage" has so much religious baggage that it is hard for some people to get past the notion that it isn't so much about the religious aspect as it is the quality of life benefits that accrue with marriage (they aren't truly "rights' in the Constitutional sense of the word). With one exception that I can think of (the checking of the "married" box when filing of Federal taxes, and believe me that ain't anything to fight over) there are very few benefits that can't be realized another way. In other words, state-sanctioned marriage isn't the only way of achieving the desired ends here.
              What are you saying here?
              Ani Maamin B'emunah Sh'leimah B'viyat Hamashiach. V'af al pi sheyitmahmehah im kol zeh achake lo b'chol yom sheyavo.

              "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick

              Comment

              • Nathaniel
                Champion of the Balance
                • Nov 2006
                • 1989

                #8




                That post was sensible, reasonable, inteligent and offers a good solution.... what the hell is it doing in a discusion involving homosexuality and religion!?!?!?!

                Comment

                • Kyrinn S. Eis
                  Psychwar Vet
                  • Aug 2007
                  • 2585

                  #9
                  Originally posted by aethercowboy View Post
                  That takes the whole issue of "morals" out of it, I'd think.
                  To RetCon established marriages is a lot harder to do than to usher-in an era of opennes, no? My folks would be upset to know that their 57+ year Marriage was downgraded by the State to a Civil Union -- much more so than for Bob and Larry/Ellen and Diane getting Married.
                  Ani Maamin B'emunah Sh'leimah B'viyat Hamashiach. V'af al pi sheyitmahmehah im kol zeh achake lo b'chol yom sheyavo.

                  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick

                  Comment

                  • Nathaniel
                    Champion of the Balance
                    • Nov 2006
                    • 1989

                    #10
                    true about the legal aspect Kyrinn, but their church would regard them as married if that matters to them. And by the way, wish them a happy bakerite wedding anaversary from me (that is the traditional gift for 57 years, yeah? either way it is both impressive and cool )

                    Comment

                    • Kyrinn S. Eis
                      Psychwar Vet
                      • Aug 2007
                      • 2585

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Nathaniel View Post
                      true about the legal aspect Kyrinn, but their church would regard them as married if that matters to them. And by the way, wish them a happy bakerite wedding anaversary from me (that is the traditional gift for 57 years, yeah? either way it is both impressive and cool )
                      Church? > scratches her head < Oh, the CatholoLutheranNeoPagan Angry Deists. Yes, that church. Okay. Gotcha.

                      Yeah, cool. I'll tell Mum, we're watching those eeeevil Olympics. Thanks.
                      Ani Maamin B'emunah Sh'leimah B'viyat Hamashiach. V'af al pi sheyitmahmehah im kol zeh achake lo b'chol yom sheyavo.

                      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick

                      Comment

                      • dylerpillar
                        Freelance Writing and Editing Unprofessional
                        • Aug 2008
                        • 2214

                        #12
                        I sometimes think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, but I don't really have a plan for how that would work to society's liking and don't expect it to happen any time soon; given how things are, I support same-sex marriage and also think that same-sex couples should be allowed to raise kids.

                        I think the state of child-rearing is already iffy enough that you couldn't possibly convince me that same-sex couples would somehow be worse at it; I don't see apparent abuse cases with my students but I do see parents who may well have disliked their strict childhoods so much that they don't set enough boundaries or they give kids whatever they want. I guess that's a different rant altogether.
                        Thick as wind-blown leaves innumerable, since 1985

                        Comment

                        • SERPNTA1267
                          Dreamer of the Multiverse
                          • Dec 2007
                          • 834

                          #13
                          If it makes them happy, let them get married. Most of the people I have ever known who got married also got a divorce. Some even got married again and got another divorce. So much for till death do us part.
                          Some people want to define marriage as between one man and one woman. I guess they forgot to add to the end of the line "at a time".
                          If gay people getting married makes you think that your marriage isn't special, then maybe its because your marriage isn't that special.
                          "The world is such-and-such or so-and-so only because we tell ourselves that that is the way it is. If we stop telling ourselves that the world is so-and-so, the world will stop being so-and-so." - don Juan

                          Comment

                          • Rothgo
                            Champion of the Unbalanced
                            • Aug 2006
                            • 6663

                            #14
                            I think that marriage is emotively a religeous term and that legal and religeous marriage should not be the same. Frankly: religeous marriage should have no legal status at all, while legal marriage ("civil union" or whatever other name) holds all the formal rights / responsibilities and so.

                            I think this is already the case in Germany: so folks getting married tend to get a religeous ceremony, then go off to the registars for the legal civil one (or just the latter if no religeous aspect to their marriage is desired).

                            But what of different religeons? Not all religeons diss same-sex unions (and even fewer have grounds to do so: it mainly tends to be cultural religeous belief rather than theological). Do some religeons get to define religeous marriage while others are ignored?

                            What of minimum age of consent for religeous marriage? If it's a purely religeous matter, then the state should have no say. But is that wise? I think not. So where can the state justifiably interfere in religeous matters? It's tricky: so my vote is only a tentive one. I may yet sway myself against it.

                            What also of the legal setup as regards bigamy: why is it illegal again? I think that's a JC cultural bit of state legality.

                            Comment

                            • johneffay
                              Born Again Nihilist
                              • Sep 2005
                              • 3394

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Jolanthus Trel View Post
                              I have no problem with them having a legal union and the same rights. My one stumbling block is IVF. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children, so long as the can look after the child properly. IVF though is a different issue, it is meant for infertility.
                              Surely gay couples use artificial insemination rather than IVF? The latter is an incredibly complex, time consuming, and expensive procedure. Why would fertile gays bother with it?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X