Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Gay marriages?

Quote:

---

Now a few years ago I used to live with a girl who had not only a spectacular pair of breasts, but a gay sister as well. I dunno if the gay sister had great boobs too because, well, she was gay. But anyway, this sister lived in California with her -- of what's the politically correct term -- life partner? Yeah, so these two lesbians have been with each other for a like eleven years and they were as committed to each other as any heterosexual couple I know. But since they obviously can't have any children without some help, they decided one of them gets artificially inseminated. They took a look at their jobs, and decided the one who had the lesser paying job would be the one to carry the baby, since her taking time off from work wouldn't be as financially straining. Nine months later, poof they've got a kid.

The first thing that struck me as a little unfair is only my girlfriend's sister -- the one who actually carried the baby -- could be listed on the birth certificate as the parent. Granted even if they could they'd either have to play paper-scissors-rock to see who gets listed as the father, but still it struck me as a little unfair that only one of them was legally allowed to be recognized as a parent. I mean hey, ya wait around for that long putting up with world class bitchiness beyond belief, you're gonna want some public recognition, right?

The next quirk they came across was health insurance. As it so happened, the birth mother's health insurance coverage was not as robust as the her partner's insurance. You know how that goes, better job and all that, right? Well the baby's medical coverage could not be claimed against this better policy for obvious reasons -- she wasn't legally the child's parent. So this ended up costing them a lot of money out of pocket for medical expenses, and there were even some areas where the child didn't get the same level of care as she could have if she had been covered under the better insurance policy. Again, it seemed unfair not only to the parents financially, but to the baby in regards to her health care.

And suppose for the sake of argument, that while the three of them were driving home from the hospital, there was a car accident and the birth mom was rendered brain dead. If it were a husband and wife deal, the surviving spouse would have legal control over medical treatment (or ceasing of it) for their injured partner, plus have no problem securing sole custody of the baby. But in this case, the surviving lezbo would have no legal recourse despite having just as much time and energy invested as a male partner would.

All these issues because same sex marriages are currently illegal. Okay. So let me think for a minute, that if they were legal, how would they effect my life. Would I have to pay more taxes? No. Would married gay people get a special check out line at the supermarket to get through line faster than me? No. Do they get their own special lane to avoid traffic jams? No. Do they get cheaper car insurance? No. Free car? No. Free socks? No.

So my question would be... what the [censored] do I care if gay people want to be married?

They're not fighting to have two guys dressed in wedding gowns, mascara and five o'clock shadows to prance down the aisle of your local church. They're not fighting for the right to [censored] on the crosstown bus. They're not fighting to have Hers-and-Hers bathrooms at the mall. All the benefits and rights they're fighting for, wouldn't impact my life one bit if they did get them, so why the hell would I oppose it? It's like going out and saying you oppose blue socks. You can't see em anyway, so who the [censored] cares?

The only people that could possibly have a valid argument against anti-same sex marriages are the religious groups. "Homosexuality is an abomination!" they say. Well, okay, that's your take on it that's cool. Fair enough. But then there's two things to consider when you enter that realm, too. One, where the hell were you when priests were treating eight year old children like [censored] toys? I didn't hear you say too much then, in fact you kind of looked at your shoes, mumbled something about out of court settlements, and then wandered off into the crowds. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married in a church. I don't hear you protest when religious people get married on a cruise ship snot hanging drunk after grabbing the nearest vacationer to serve as their witness. So please, if you're going to get all high and [censored] mighty, at least have the courtesy to do it evenly across the board.

And secondly, this situation my friend, is a perfect example of the REAL reason behind the separation of Church and State. It's not just a springboard for some loudmouthed [censored] to use and get his name in the paper when he wants to talk about the Pledge of Allegiance, but instead a genuine reason why Judge Judy needs to leave her Bible/Koran/Torah/Whatever at home.

What if I created a religion where marriage was illegal altogether, would the government have to rule all marriages null and void? What if all the 43,000 people in the United Kingdom who checked their religion as "Jedi" all decided they're never going to get laid and decided they could marry their dog? Would governments then have to recognize those marriages? The answer is no in both cases, because the whole purpose of the separation of Church and State is Uncle Sam can't pick and choose what religious movements they're going to acknowledge and which they aren't. Churchgoers have every right in the world to voice their opinions in a public forum, but when it comes time to making laws it's time to have a nice tall glass of Shut-The-[censored]-Up. The only thing Uncle Sam can do is to make sure everyone, man, woman, black, white, tall, short, cute, ugly, straight or gay, gets a fair shake.

---

Quote:

---

George Bush has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Fear ye not, for such an amendment will never get passed, and I'm not really even sure how serious the "proposal" is. Nevertheless, unless you have been on Mars for the past few weeks, in a cave, with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears, you are aware of the turmoil this issue has caused, particularly in San Fransisco and Massachusetts.

Progressive and sane thinkers realize that there are more important issues facing this nation and the world in general than who is having sex with whom, but many people, primarily fuelled by religious fervor, are declaring that homosexual marriage destroys the "sanctity" of marriage, cheapens it in the eyes of society, and is probably responsible for the World Trade Center attacks.

Of course, I suppose one could make the same argument about every divorce that has ever occured, or the endless numbers of Hollywood marriages that dissolve within months.

However, some remain staunchly opposed to the entire idea, citing that God intended a man to be with a woman, drawing on various Biblical texts to support the idea that a man should never engage in carnal relations with a man (though I do not recall the Bible saying the same of women).

Basing the definition of what constitutes a proper marriage on the Bible is an interesting concept. Let us examine it in detail.

Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and as many women as you'd like. (Gen xxix 17-28, II Sam iii 2-5)

Marriage should not interfere with a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam v 13, I Kings xi 3; II Chron xi 21)

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be stoned to death. (Deut xxii 13-21)

Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen xxiv 3, Num xxv 1-9, Ezra ix 12, Neh x 30)

Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut xxii 19, Mark x 9)

If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he will be punished by Yaweh.

Wives are required to be subservient and obedient to their husbands. (Eph v 22-24)

Yes indeed, using the Bible as our guidance to define marriage seems to be an excellent idea.

---

Originally posted by 1314:

---

I think this topic will be like the political and religious topics that get brought up.

So, I'll just grab some popcorn for now.

---