Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Why not?

Nov 20, 2003 2:34AM PST

We've been going all around this for days. I've heard lots of discussion on lots of topics. So far no one has made an argument on the harm that would occur if gays were allowed to get married.

Can anyone give me a clear, simple explanation of the harm that would come to anyone who is married or who wants to marry just because gay couples can do it too? "Because it has to be a man and a woman" ain't good enough. "Because god said so" ain't good enough. "Because it will corrup our moral fiber" ain't good enough. "Because it's icky" ain't good enough. I want to hear about problems that will occur that are not happening now. Or whatever the harm is feared to be.

Thanks.

Dan

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Corps of Engineers?
Nov 20, 2003 11:28PM PST

You obviously don't know very much about them or you wouldn't have even made the comment.

I did neglect to add that the hill would probably be restored by those nasty capatalistic Conservatives who dredge the muddy water and pile the dredged up mud in an unregulated mound and plant unregulated grass so the water can come again in Liberal amounts to repeat the process of destruction--history in action you know. Happens every time citizent learn they can "vote themselves bread and circuses" as Heinlein put it.

- Collapse -
Western Decadence And Immorality...
Nov 20, 2003 11:48PM PST
I did neglect to add that the hill would probably be restored by those nasty capatalistic Conservatives who dredge the muddy water and pile the dredged up mud in an unregulated mound and plant unregulated grass so the water can come again in Liberal amounts to repeat the process of destruction--history in action you know. - Edward O'Daniel

<gag>
Perhaps you're right Ed. Maybe we should follow the lead of the Conservative Taliban and reverse all the immorality in our society like they are trying to do in Afghanistan. All music should be banned. Women should be forced to wear burqas. Alcohol and cigarettes should be outlawed. Smutty magazines should be pulled from the shelves of our stores. The Internet should be shut down. Violators should be stoned to death. Robbers should have their hands removed...

Yes the Conservative Taliban had it right. We should return to our moral roots because that was a much better environment for all. The more we work together in order to eliminate Western decadence and immorality, the better off we will all be...
</gag>
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Nov 21, 2003 5:43AM PST
- Collapse -
If the married are either ...
Nov 20, 2003 7:31AM PST

... afforded greater personal civil rights or fewer as a function of the institution, then THAT should be changed, because otherwise there is inequality under the law of single vs. married people. You dismiss my solution, but it is the only fair one as regards equality under the law. It is my understanding that the biggest beef is such things as visitation rights, inheritance, etc. If we are talking private property and contracts, that is a non-issue.

- Collapse -
As a matter of fact, I agree with you 100%
Nov 20, 2003 10:40PM PST

I think that there should be far fewer laws and policies that favor one person over another because of marital status, parental status, etc.

I just think that's a topic for its own thread, as much as I hate to set aside any topic where we are on the same side.

Thanks,

Dan

- Collapse -
Topic for another thread ... maybe ... but ...
Nov 21, 2003 3:31AM PST

... perhaps you miss my point. Of the reasons I've seen given FOR gays to marry, most tend to be practical re: benefits and/or legal status. Most of those can already be accomplished making at least half the practical arguments moot. The rest can be made moot by making laws and programs marriage neutral. Then the only reason to allow gay marriage would be because gays want to redefine a longstanding institution that has been the cornerstone of Western civilized society. Sorry Dan, but most just don't see a need for further redefinition. It wouldn't be progress in the opinions of a wide majority.

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Nov 20, 2003 6:43AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Nov 20, 2003 9:03AM PST
- Collapse -
wow............ the truth just got deleted :-(
Nov 20, 2003 12:10PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:wow............ the truth just got deleted :-( SAD:((
Nov 21, 2003 3:59AM PST

Maybe try again and not be so graphic?? LOL I agree, it was the truthHappy

Glenda

- Collapse -
There may be a positive aspect to gays marrying
Nov 21, 2003 11:47AM PST

I personally do not like the idea of gays marrying, but there is a positive aspects, which is if a gay couple marry they may not participate so readily in permissive acts. Therefore aids will not spread so easily. My idea may be pie in the sky, but it must be worth a thought.

- Collapse -
Abiding By The Vows...
Nov 21, 2003 2:47PM PST
I personally do not like the idea of gays marrying, but there is a positive aspects, which is if a gay couple marry they may not participate so readily in permissive acts. Therefore aids will not spread so easily. My idea may be pie in the sky, but it must be worth a thought. - SteveGargini

Hey Steve,

I wonder if there have been any studies to see if committed gay couples are any more promiscuous than hetero couples? I've got a feeling that the studies might find that committed gay couples are nearly as devoted to each other as committed hetero couples. If that is the case, then allowing gay couples to marry shouldn't change the promiscuity of either party any more then that of any hetero couple that gets married...

What it might do is get couples to abide by vows that they previously weren't allowed to take. That seems to prevent some hetero couples from doing things they would like to do...
- Collapse -
Re:Abiding By The Vows...
Nov 22, 2003 1:14AM PST

<b>I wonder if there have been any studies to see if committed gay couples are any more promiscuous than hetero couples?</b>

Hi Blake,
That is exactly what I was thinking about. A study would be a very worthwhile action, and would assist immensely in making a rational evaluation of the "Good" and "bad" aspects of the proposal.
I fear that there will be a clash between what religion finds acceptable, and what would be best for mankind, especially in reference to that horrendous Aids disease.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Abiding By The Vows...
Nov 22, 2003 4:50AM PST

Hi Steve,

I think it's good you're trying to find a positive, but don'tcha think that a monogamous couple (**** or hetero) will be monogamous with or without the paperwork?

If one is not so inclined, then the paperwork certainly won't make a difference either (evidenced by the presence of adultery in hetero couples).

Cindi

- Collapse -
I think it may depend
Nov 22, 2003 7:24AM PST

Cindi on whether the marriage involves an oath to God, or is just what you say, a piece of paper.
I believe that at least some of them would keep the oath, and if only 25% of them stayed faithful, then that would mean quite a large number of gays who are not participating in licentious sex, with all the dangers that that would involve.

- Collapse -
The Cheaters...
Nov 22, 2003 12:40PM PST
I believe that at least some of them would keep the oath, and if only 25% of them stayed faithful, then that would mean quite a large number of gays who are not participating in licentious sex, with all the dangers that that would involve. - SteveGargini

I've got a sneaking suspicion that those who are faithful to their partners after the vows are probably the same who are committed and faithful to their partners before the ceremony. In most cases, I doubt that cheaters avoid cheating with or without the marriage vows...
- Collapse -
Re:The Cheaters...
Nov 22, 2003 7:53PM PST
I've got a sneaking suspicion that those who are faithful to their partners after the vows are probably the same who are committed and faithful to their partners before the ceremony

Yep! I have got a suspicion that you are absolutely right on that one, which leaves the question apart from any financial benefits why do they want to marry?
- Collapse -
Denial Of Equal Benefits...
Nov 23, 2003 1:34AM PST
Yep! I have got a suspicion that you are absolutely right on that one, which leaves the question apart from any financial benefits why do they want to marry? - SteveGargini

Maybe if you can figure out why anyone would want to marry, you would have your answer for why same-sex couples would want to marry as well. I'm sure it has a lot to do with all the bennies that come along with it, including health insurance benefits, tax benefits, and inheritance benefits to name a few. I'm sure that there are many other financial and non-financial benefits that make marriage attractive too...

A year or so ago in Tampa, a female cop was shot and killed while on duty. Even though she had a long-term same-sex relationship with another woman, the police dept denied her partner survivor benefits that would have quickly been given to every surviving spouse under the same circumstances. Had this same-sex couple been allowed to be married, the benefits would have quickly been offered and given to the surviving partner. But in this case, the surviving partner had two tragedies to deal with at the same time, the loss of her long-term partner and the loss of income. I'm sure that one loss was overwhelming, but both losses were probably devastating. Even though this female cop risked her life in order to protect the public, she was denied equal benefits that would have been provided to any hetero married couple...
- Collapse -
Thanks for pointing that out to me very clearly
Nov 23, 2003 7:50AM PST

It certainly shows how it would be unfair to prevent same sex marriage, but it doesn't have to happen in the church. I am sure that the laws of the church are not so intrinsically connected to the laws of the land, as to make this impossible.

- Collapse -
Ship Captains And Judges...
Nov 23, 2003 8:16AM PST
It certainly shows how it would be unfair to prevent same sex marriage, but it doesn't have to happen in the church. I am sure that the laws of the church are not so intrinsically connected to the laws of the land, as to make this impossible. - SteveGargini

I can't think of any reason why a same sex marriage would take place in a church unless all parties involved agree with it, including the congregation, the priest, rabbi, or minister, and of course the couple. Marriage ceremonies can be performed by Ship Captains and Judges. Perhaps there are other people who have the authority to perform a non-religious marriage as well...
- Collapse -
Quite amazingly during the lifetime of this thread
Nov 24, 2003 10:08AM PST

The state of Masach.... has ruled that banning of same sex marriages is illegal. Sorry I haven't got the foggiest idea how to spell that state Happy Well! I do live in England...that's my excuse and I am sticking to it.
It will be interesting to see how many other states follow through with the same contention.

- Collapse -
I have got the Massachusetts legal ruling url
Nov 24, 2003 10:54AM PST
- Collapse -
A Fair Test???
Nov 24, 2003 11:37AM PST
I suppose the fear is that such a ruling will denigrate the values of family life. The court is out on that one I guess. - SteveGargini

I think the reason this is such a huge issue is because many believe that being gay or straight is a personal choice. For many it may be. There are many people who are sexually attracted to both sexes. The people who suggest that being gay is a choice may be part of this group. So for bisexuals, choosing a gay relationship would most definitely be a choice...

As with most heterosexuals, I believe that few homosexuals make a choice when it comes to sexual orientation. These people couldn't even begin to pretend to be heterosexual if they tried any more than a heterosexual could attempt to be homosexual. Those who become ill at the thought of same sex relationships may find that gays become equally ill at the thought of male/female sexual relationships...

To deny gays who were created by God, the same rights as heteros who were created by the same God, I think is a complete and utter tragedy. Why would God create this situation? Would it be a fair test by God to give hetero sexual urges to one group, allowing them to act on those urges, while giving the opposite urges to another group, expecting them to deny those urges? I can't imagine that a true, loving God would do that to any of his/her children...