San Francisco Issuing Gay Marriages - Page 4

grampngram - thanks for posting that about the constitution, it is clear there.

That sparked an argument between my hubby and me - he thought that homosexuality was not around at the time the constitution was written, I told him he was wrong.

So I did some research - from the 1600 homosexuals were killed - and masturbators were punished - their reason? They were wasting their "seed" which was entirely for making children.

So, if sex was just to procreate, then it would make marriages between people who don't want children or cannot have children null and void.

Grampngram, that was an excellent post. Actually, I don't believe that this is a partisan issue, but more of a "conservative vs. liberal" one. Both of the main parties have their own right and left wings.
Rose O'Donnell has also tied the knot in San Francisco:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/26/odonnell.ap/

It seems that the mayor of Plattesbug NY is performing same-sex marriages, too. He told the town clerk to issue licenses and she refused, as it is against the law. The mayor is issuing "marriage affidavits".

Pima County's Clerk of the Court was asked about this issue and her response was, "It is against the law, for me to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples." If a person lies on a marriage license application, it is fraud in this state.

Unless or until the laws are changed, none of those licenses and ceremonies are valid.

It is my understanding that marriage is a religious ceremony. Therefore, if you are NOT religious, why marry? I am not religious and am actually quite opposed to organised religions, so therefore I will not be getting married. Oh, I may have a ceremony to declare life long love to my partner, but it won't be in a church or have anything to do with god since that would, above all else, be hugely hypocritical of me. I dont' even know if I believe in god.
Therefore, if a gay couple who AREN'T christian/religious are going to have a religious ceremony, I find that just as hypocritical as if I myself had a religious marriage.
If they ARE religious however, then they have as much right to marry under the eyes of 'god' as anyone else. As many have said, what has it got to do with anyone else? If two people want to do it then it's up to them and it isn't bothering or affecting anyone else. I think it's a step forward. Its about time. My entire opinion on LIFE is 'do whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone else'

For many people, it is a matter of legal rights, e.g., health insurance, pensions,a say in medical questions, while for others it is a matter of being able to go through what many consider one of life's important rites regardless of their sexual preferences.
I doubt that any of the same-sex marriages now being performed in San Francisco have a chance of being recognized. However, sometimes "protest actions" eventually lead to legal changes, like the "freedom rides" or the draft card burning / draft dodging of the sixties.

Well Id say what I think, but it would just start another argument
Ill give you one opinion though... people need to stop posting on this topic!

Thank you,

Later,
Brandon

Since this is an opinion forum, all opinions are welcome. Here in my state there is a rush on marriages now before they overturn this law, and they are trying- especially the Christian Coalition. I wonder if that means the couples getting married today and in the next few days in Portland, after they go on their honeymoon will they come home and find out the marriage isn't legal?

Victor, I merged your two threads together.

Brandon, there are others here who want to continue participating in this thread. If you have lost interest, I suggest you choose one of the many other threads that are available in IMO.

The mayor of Plattsburg NY has been criminally charged, for performing marriages, for people without a license. There are 19 misdemeanor counts and he could get one year in jail. The prosecutor is saying that they are not looking for jail time, though.

The mayor says that he intends to perform up to two dozen same-sex unions, this weekend. He is taking couples, by appointment only and will not accept walk-ins.

Wow, this is a pretty spirited debate here! And you ALL are so eloquent with your posts. I'm so impressed.

As to my opinion, I think I'm probably in the minority ( which is typical for me! ).
I am all for civil unions, I don't think that people that are gay/lesbian should be denied the 'rights' of other couples such as tax, insurance, etc.

BUT I have a huge problem w/ them calling it marriage. Marriage to me by definition is a union of a man and a woman, and to say it any other way is insulting me, in my opinion.

I also believe that if God had intended marriage to be between same sex couples, then he wouldn't have made it only so that men and women can procreate together. No matter how you slice it, no 2 women or no 2 men can conceive a biological child together. No matter how you try to justify it. And thats what marriage is all about. Its about loving each other and creating a family.

By the way, I wanted to add that I just heard about a child support dispute in VT regarding same sex couples.
There is a couple that the 'spouse' who left now wants to not pay child support to her partner, even though they adopted the baby together as a couple. And her reasoning is that they were only partners, not married.

This appears to be such a double standard. They want the benefits that are good, but when it comes to alimony, child support, suddenly they are only partners?
Give me a break!

So a "family" ONLY exists when 2 people have a kid together? What about all those couples out there who can't have children? Or those people who don't want to have children? Or those couples who get married later in life? (myself included) Ok..what about a couple that adopt a child? They didn't biologically create this child. Do they not have a family ? Or a couple that had to turn to artificial insemination to get pregnant. Is that not a family? On the same note, what about a gay couple that adopt or concieve a child thru insemination. Same thing as the hetero-couple in the previous sentances, but the second couple happen to be gay. Are they not a family using your definition?

Sandy

Sorry...gotta answer this one too.

This was 1 isolated case, don't use that as a ruler for every gay couple. You will also find divorcing hetero-couples with the same problem.

I have a friend who was a virgin on her wedding night, gave birth to a son 9 months and 3 days after the wedding. Her ex-husband refused to give her any child support because his family "only makes girls" so she had to have cheated. She finally had a DNA test 19 yrs later to prove he was the father and now has the proof, but no money.

Sandy

The purpose of marriage is NOT procreation- its a legal and emotional bonding of two people who love each other. Procreation is something that often happens within a marriage, but it also happens a heck of a lot outside of marriage. And as Sweets said many couples choose not to have children, that doesn't make them any less married.

Love is love. Most of us have it 'easy' in that we fell in love with someone of the opposite sex. IMO- I could just as easily have fallen in love with a woman as a man. Its not just a persons genitalia that attracts one to another, its a lot of things.

Victor,

I'm not sure how much you know about genetics.(You're extremely smart) I'll give a very quick and simplified synopsis. A woman has 2 X chromosomes. A man has an X and Y. So the woman can only give X to the child. So therefore, it is the MAN who decides if the child is a boy or girl. So when an a$$ tells you he can only have girls, he is way off base!
He's got a 50/50 chance. The genetic variations you are talking about are rare.

Sandy

Just an FYI...and one of the reasons I am so in favor of gay marraiges... my cousin and her partner had a baby boy this morning! A GREAT BIG boy! 9lbs even!!!

Sandy

Like I said Victor, you have your finger in quite a number of knowledge pots, I wasn't sure how much you knew. I didn't want to talk down but at 15, no many kids know about these things.

Victor, I merged it for you.

I'm rather new here and don't get a chance to post much, but this thread caught my eye. I consider myself to be relatively liberal in my social views, while my husband is pretty conservative. We were talking about this issue and he asked me a question that stumped me.

"A brother and sister can't get married - even if they're sterile. If we (as society) say it's fine for two men or two women to marry, then why not brother and sister (or someother "illegal" form of marriage)? If procreation isn't a factor, then where do we draw the line?"

Help! I hate being stumped in a debate.

Well, I think its mostly because a brother and sister come from the same genetic background.

And brothers and sisters do marry in rare cases. It creeps me out but I have heard of it. Some cousins marry also.

Brother/sister marriages are banned precisely because of procreation-the more closely related two individuals are, the greater the chance their children will have genetic disorders. Sure, if they are sterile it's not a concern, but if exceptions are made for that situation, then it's harder to ban it in others (so what do you do if the couple promises not to have sex? Or to use birth control?).

The 4 arguments recently made by Senator Santorum (sp?) of Pennsylvania against Gay marriage are in keeping with your husband. [I'm adding the other 3 in case he brings them up to you.) They were:

1)Marriage between siblings. That has been answered by other posters. We know medically that 'inbreeding' tends to replicate traits which are recessive in nature (meaning you need the genes on both sides for the trait to appear) and these are often medically problematic. These are even seen frequently in close-knit societies, where people marry people who are more extended relations. That is why certain ethnic groups are now tested before they have children, even if they are not closely related, to make sure that they are both not carriers of certain diseases.Taysacs disease is an example of that.

2)Legalization of sex with children. The age of consent (particularly of girls) has risen in Western society because of changes in how women are viewed, and changes in the idea of when humans become adult enough to make decisions about sex/marriage without coercion. There is no logical connection to the age of the consent to gay marriages whatsoever, yet critics of gay marriage seem to throw this into the debate to inflame people.

3)Legalization of bigamy/polygamy. This one I've never quite gotten (as an objection to gay marriage.) For one thing, it usually involves heterosexuals, and for another, is quite legal in certain countries and religions, such as Islam. As a female, I don't know why another woman would want to share their husband with 5 or 6 other wives, but if they choose to do so, who really cares? They can do it married or not.

4)My personal favorite: legalization of bestiality, which is sex with animals. I can only marvel at the silliness of the people who propose that this could become a major problem. At a minimum, animals are protected under cruelty statutes to which this would no doubt apply.