IMNSHO - The solar system does not revolve around the earth, and the earth does not rotate on the axis of religion, or even principle. It rotates on the axis of money. People don't want to shoulder the bump in healthcare coverage that new forms of marriage will introduce - where there are all of a sudden a bunch of new families instead of individual policies. And the boss has to pay for it. This isn't about religion any more than 9/11 was - but this is healthcare, not oil. Same thing, though - big $$$. And the power brokers know that they can get the little people to do their bidding with the religious angle. Or, that's how I see it anyway ...

well, i'm sure the lawyers will jump for joy when they have more clients for divorce cases.

Tien,

Leaving religion out of it, I fail to see the harm that would be done to our society if gay people were allowed to marry.

That said, as a married person, I think you would feel a little bit differently if you were married. In most wedding ceremonies, you pledge to be there for your husband/wife in good times and bad, sickness and health, till death do us part. That's pretty serious stuff, or it should be pretty serious stuff. Just because people don't follow through on their vows as much as they used to doesn't mean "marriage isn't what it used to be."

I fail to see how J-Lo and Britney Spears, two inhabitors of some alternate universe apparently, can be included in your argument about the non-sanctity of marraige, unless I haven't developed a sense of sarcasm as high as yours. I don't think I would include them as examples of anything other than how a horribly overrated human being can take advantage of small minded people.

Damn you're cynical sometimes.

hey brian, i'm sure that if i were married, i would take the vows seriously. but i think the real question is whether or not a gay couple can take those vows the same way a heterosexual couple can.

but marriage has changed. while people made mistakes in the past with marriage and people make mistakes now, you can't tell me that marriage hasn't changed.

oh, and yes, my britney and j-lo comment was sarcastic. they are far from perfect people.

another thing. while religion is often tied to marriage, in my opinion, there should be no influence of religion who can or cannot get married. while people often choose to perform a wedding ceremony in a church, it's not a religious body that has to approve of it, it's a state/county/city.

Brian-the assumption that non-married people couldn't possibly understand the seriousness of wedding vows is slightly condescending dont you think? why do you think that people are holding off longer to get married in the first place? I think that single people are a fairly intelligent bunch, not the dolts that got left behind cause they failed to understand what vows meant to their present lives and future lives.
However, I think you are ignoring reality if you think the way people behave in marriage has not changed. The vows may have stayed the same, but the consequences of those vows have definately changed. Getting out of a destructive/unhealthy/unhappy marriage is a much more socially acceptable path to take now than it ever was in the past.
Marriage is about 2 people loving each other. It is not necessarily about breeding, about moving a woman from her father's house to her husband's to be "cared for" anymore.

The whole point is... marriage has changed. There is no reason that a marriage cannot be between two loving people. Gay couples deserve the same rights and protections offered through taxes and insurance that heterosexual couples are awarded.

Tien,

That's my point exactly. Bush keeps saying that all religions support male-female marriages, but in America, marriage is not at all a religious institution. It is a legal institution.

Every single priest on earth can pronounce you man and wife, and it won't mean a thing until that marriage certificate is signed and approved.

And until you decide to support an amendment to the Constitution that says Church and State now have something to do with each other, no law should be passed by our government mandating adherance to a religious standard.

The only reasons this is even an issue are:
1. conservatives don't want to see insurance premiums "skyrocket"
2. the good old boys don't like none o' dat dere gay bizness, and them gays shouldn't be breakin' the laws of God. Yee haw!

I don't understand this argument about insurance. Many employers already offer coverage for "domestic partnerships." Plus, the percentage of gays is small enough that providing coverage to married partners would have a marginal effect given the skyrocketing cost of health care for all employees. Anyway, are gays more likely to be uninsured (or unemployed) now (meaning that some employer isn;t already covering them now)? Possibly, but I doubt it.

like I said, I'm not sure that I necessarily see the problem with gay people getting married. My quibble is not with that notion.

However, I think it is a disgrace to attack the sanctity of marriage. And please don't tell me what marriage is about. I know what its about. Just because people's views towards marriage have changed doesn't make it any more or less sacred than it was 100 years ago.

Because of the Patriot Act, it is easier for the government to invade your right to privacy. Does that make the right to privacy any less sacred? My guess is that you would say no. But obviously, the way certain people view your right to privacy has changed, so that must mean that privacy ain't what it used to be.

I don't think anyone mentioned anything about the whole "women being moved from their father's house" and being "cared for" by their husband, so please spare me the feminism. I love my wife and respect her as much as, and in most cases more than, any man I know.

Again, I say I don't oppose gay marriage. If two people who love each other can provide a loving home and contribute positively to society, let 'em get hitched. I just have a problem with the notion that the institution of marriage is any less sacred than it ever was, even if the way that some people behave IN marriage has changed.

This is a dumb argument. I can't believe I just spent the time to type that.

but brian, if the people that get married change and their behavior in the marriage has changed, has not marriage changed as well?

i'm not saying there is no point in marriage anymore and that there can't be a marriage that is still sacred, but that it's not the same "institution" that it used to be.

oh, just wondering, how did you find my site (you don't have to tell me if you don't want to)?

I generally believe every issue is about money one way or another, but this one I think has more to do with the US being a christian country. If church and state were truly separate, the only thing standing in the way of gay marriage would be the insurance thing, which is minor, and the fact that a lot of people don't like gay people. Neither of those would warrant the president asking to amend our constitution, far as I can tell.

jk and dan, you both make excellent points. i think we can just say that bush doesn't like gay people. bush doesn't like gay people, black people, women, chilren, babies, or puppies.

sacred: 1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose)

Let's take both parts of the definition. For many people, the first undoubtedly applies -- they are married under god. But that argument seems irrelevant to this debate. This question is whether gays should be allowed to enter into legal marriage, irrespective of religous concerns. So calling marriage *sacred* in this instance as an argument against gay marriage is a red herring.

Now the second part: if exclusive devotion is an element of a sacred pact, then clearly marriage is not as sacred as it once was, given that half end in divorce, or the breaking of that devotion.

stupid: 1 a : This argument.

according to a recent report, 52.35% of people think this argument is stupid and unwinnable, therefore throwing into serious doubt its sanctity.

In summation, I think that gay people should be allowed to get married, and any law barring or permitting it should be handled by the states, not the federal government.

Brian- as far as the "feminist" logic you seem to dislike so much: you said that marriage had not changed. One of the primary purposes of marriage in the past was for reproductive reasons, and yes, women were moved from the fathers to the husbands. That is not feminism, that is a little thing called reality.
That is not the case anymore in this country (or at least it is not as prevelant as it once was.)
That means marriage has changed. That was my point. Marriage may be the most sacred part of your life - fine. no one is arguing that. The argument would be that the institution of marriage has changed because of changing social norms.
If you think this argument is stupid, I would wonder why you are continuing it?

to be contrarian

brian - contrarian or....
difficult?

Also, I didn't say marriage had not changed. I said marriage was no less sacred than it had been. If we're going to argue about this, lets make sure we're arguing about the same thing, please.

Tien,

I came across your site when looking for TMQ archives. Thanks for doing that.

Brian,

When you say that marriage hasn't changed and that its sanctity is of utmost importance, and then immediately follow it up with "gay people should be allowed to get married", you're contradicting yourself in the context of the argument. What Bush is saying, is that only heterosexuals can maintain the sanctity of marriage, as are you with this statement:

"That said, as a married person, I think you would feel a little bit differently if you were married. In most wedding ceremonies, you pledge to be there for your husband/wife in good times and bad, sickness and health, till death do us part. That's pretty serious stuff, or it should be pretty serious stuff."

What you're insinuating here, is exactly the opposite of your proclamations that gay people should be allowed to marry. You're saying that they are incapable of pledging the "pretty serious stuff". And hurrah for you for being married, but what exactly does that have to do with anything? Do you think that because I'm single, I'm not capable of grasping the implications of this issue, or capable of forming an educated opinion?

You're also completely missing the point with the J.Lo and Britney examples. They are the PERFECT example of why the idea of "The Sanctity of Marriage" is absolutely bogus, in the context that Bush is trying to represent. Just because those two are in the public eye, doesn't preclude their marriages from this argument. There are plenty of private citizens in the US who have been married and divorced twice (and more), and there are surely numerous people who have done the quickie marriage/annulment thing.

This is NOT a stupid argument. Just because you're not getting the response you want to hear, doesn't invalidate the issue.

Rappy- I'm glad that there are many other educated, well spoken singles out there ready and willing to stand up and speak their opinion. I agree with you completely.

brian, glad i could help with the tmq archives.

clearly, the gay marriage thing is a big issue and a divisive one (not that we've really been discussing that and it's not like these comment are representative of nation-wide sentiment). most people here seem to think that gay people should be allowed to marry, which is a great thing. if two people love each other, they should be able to affirm that love in the eyes of the law. unfortunately, with an amendment like this, bush would be limiting the rights of people, something that he seems to enjoy doing recently (patriot act, etc.).

would many of his supporters be favorable towards a similar limit on the rights of people to bear arms? i don't think so. i just think that the bush administration has gone very far in limiting the rights of citizens in this country, and while we do live in different times, i don't think that changing the constitution or limiting rights is the way to go - even if you're going to call it "homeland security" or " weakening the good influence of society".

This IS a stupid argument, because no matter how many numbers or definitions anyone comes up with, you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. So it IS stupid for me to invest time and emotional energy in trying to prove my point to people who are just as stubborn as I am. I might as well be "speaking my opinion" to a wall.

Nonetheless, I did not mean to demean singles. Hell, I was single at one time. If, as a non-Jew, someone said "boy, being Jewish just ain't what it used to be," I would have said, "How can you possibly speak to that, not being Jewish?" In my educated opinion, I don't think you would have disagreed with me.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was insinuating that gays couldn't pledge the "serious stuff". If that was inferred because I only mentioned "husband/wife", then I apologize. I meant to and should have included "partner."

tien: seriously, lets get some more porn on here. this political stuff is over my head.

why not gay porn as well? is it not as sacred as straight porn?

Are you kidding me? That is a seriously poor example. You're pretty much saying that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on anything I haven't personally experienced. Well, not having been gay, married, or an American, I suppose we've found a way to end this discussion.

jk, some fleshbot for you and dan, some fleshbot for you. oh, and those aren't suitable for work.

Good argument though, mate. We should it again, eh?

do

I have been following this argument all day, and being a married, white, Catholic male, I think Dan makes the best point-- more porn!

go porn.
i have a question to ponder though... this seems to be a male dominated discussion. are the females not participating because they feel that marriage is still as sacred as it was and shouldnt be debated, or does it not spark any interest, or is it that they feel that marriage isnt sacred at all so who cares?
just curious.

brian, feel free to comment whenever. i love comments. there are always other viewpoints than my liberal northeast communist views, like say, conservative bible-belt jingoistic views. not that you're necessarily in the latter or that i consider myself all those other things.

john, don't forget, you also have a friend that's gay. curious how that would affect your thoughts. and how can dick cheney bush's decision on this. does he think his daughter doesn't have the rights of a "normal" person? if i were a log-cabin republican, i would revolt.

My feeling on this issue, if you want to eat Corn Flakes for breakfast day-after-day-after-day-after-day, more power to you. If you make that choice, no one should stop you.
BTW, Dan, are you engaged yet?

Where is my porn?

Tien - The Dick Cheney question is a good one.
And I second the request for porn. But it has to be married porn. That's the only kind my wife will let me look at.

I would say my view on this is more idealistic than conservative bible-belt jingoistic, if that's what you are insinuating. I'm not ashamed of that.

corn flakes for breakfast? the porn is linked in another comment. but john, here you go, you should like this and again, for other people, here.

and brian, i'm not saying that you're conservative bible-belt, etc. i'm just saying that there are plenty of people out there that would probably disagree with me about everything i say. then again, those people are wrong.

now that's why I read your site, Tien. You make me laugh.

And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.
(Damn internet, making me have to type that).

John,

How dare you speak poorly about the deliciousness of Corn Flakes and mock them by implying that the mundanity of marriage is in any way akin to the mild corn syrup goodness that is their flavor!

I demand comeuppance!

And some porn. I'm also very into the porn.

thanks brian. you know what i don't like? emoticons? i mean, they are very useful and i can understand why people use them and i generally don't mind when people use them with me, but i just refuse to use them. often times, i type "insert emoticon here" instead. okay, i might be a bit neurotic, but it's just a thing i have.

ohh, corn flakes! but if you add sugar on corn flakes, you get frosted flakes.

see, porn can bring us all together. well, not gay porn. that's just for john.

still not engaged. any day now though. still have to do the dad talk.

It's like we left home because we hated the way our parents imposed their beliefs on us, and then we just did the same thing to our kids years later- we shoulda just stayed in England. At least then we'd all have cool accents.