Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Politics and marriage

  1. Feb 5, 2004 #1
    Howdy all,

    There is an issue in the political arena currently that I don’t understand. I will start by introducing myself and then my stance on this issue.

    I am a fair minded American republican. I am not gay or a gay activist even, but the issue of gay marriage is baffling to me. I say let them get married and share the same freedoms and benefits that straight couples have.

    What I gather from polls, is that my stance on this issue is in the minority. Yet, I have never met someone who was able to explain to me the other side of the ball.

    Please respond if you are on either side of the issue at hand. I will reserve my own thoughts until a debate has begun.

    Chad
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 5, 2004 #2

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hmmm the only thing i can think of is that the act of marriage is traditionally i religious thing. Probably still is. Anyway, in Christianity, homosexuality is abhorred and is classed as sinful (i think) so in the eyes of the church, homosexuality is blasphemy and to allow it to continue into marriage would be EXTREMELY blasphemous. I may be wrong...
     
  4. Feb 5, 2004 #3
    Jimmy, are you opposed to gay marriage? Just want to know.
     
  5. Feb 5, 2004 #4
    The only argument people really seem to have is that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.

    Of course, "tradition" is just an argument people fall back on when they don't have a good reason to oppose something. "That's the way it's always been" isn't much of an argument.


    All the other arugments are based on the assumption that homosexuals are immoral. Since I haven't seen a good argument for that either, I wouldn't give those arguments much consideration.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2004
  6. Feb 5, 2004 #5
    My thoughts exactly. It just drives me crazy that fair minded people are not in a majoritly in this country
     
  7. Feb 5, 2004 #6

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's about time. Now gay & lesbian partner's can gain the same benefits reserved only for married couples. Also, now they will have the same legal divorce battles.
     
  8. Feb 5, 2004 #7

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    those who have issues with gay marriage are in a round-about way are inflicting their morals on others...gay marriage does not hurt another person, that is how it should be looked at...
     
  9. Feb 5, 2004 #8

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I think Jimmy has the right of it, it's mostly a matter of marriage being a "relious institution".

    Here I disagree somewhat. I think that tradition is as valid a reason as any if the act in question is nothing but "tradition" to begin with. After all, why do people get married at all? Tradition.

    I think that it is at this point that one must remember the difference between the religious cerimony and the legal status recognised by the sate. Seperation of church and state demands that the state cannot force the church to recognise a gay couple as "married in the eyes of God", but niether can the Church dictate their legal status. Just as the Church cannot dictate how two cohabitating women can file their tax returns, so the state cannot order the Church to perform the wedding cerimony between them.

    It is here that one's definition of "married" comes into play. If, as has been said earlier in this Topic, it is an issue of getting all the same "benifits reserved only for married couples" (and I assume we're talking legal benifits here), then it should be enough for the gay community that the state recognises them and affords them thjose rigths. If people begin to protest the Church for refusing to recognise such a relationship as "marriage" in the relious sence, then it will be obvious that the gaining of rights was not the real motive here.

    If I insisit that I be allowed to live my life as I choose (so long as I'm not harming anyone), then I am fighting for my rights. If I insist that others approve of my lifestyle, even though it runs contrary to their beliefs, then I become the oppresor, the bigot who cannot suffer anyone to think thoughts that are opposed to my own view. This is a pitfall for both sides.
     
  10. Feb 6, 2004 #9
    Anyone who gets married just because of tradition is a fool. If you have good reasons other than tradition to get married, then you don't need tradition to back you up, you have good reasons. On the other hand, if the best reason two people can think of to get married is tradition, they should reconsider before making such a major decision for such a frivolous reason.


    This is a good point, but has little to do with the current issue of gay marriage. Obviously, churches should not be forced to carry out marriages if they don't want to. But that's hardly what's on the table.

    I would also contend that marriage is not intrinsically a religous institution. Churches make their own versions of marriage that incorporate religion, but the core concepts of marriage have little to do with religion.

    Also, saying that we cannot force others to accept a point of view without violating their rights is rather vague. What does it mean for someone to "accept"? I've seen it argued that by even just allowing gay civil unions, Christians are being forced to implicitly accept homosexuality and so their rights are being violated.
     
  11. Feb 6, 2004 #10

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    With the birth of Gay Marriage, we will soon have the Gay Divorcee (1934...Fred Astaire...Ginger Rogers...never mind :smile: )
     
  12. Feb 6, 2004 #11
    I don't understand what this means, even though I have heard this argument before. Who is forcing straight people to 'approve' of homosexuality?
     
  13. Feb 6, 2004 #12

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I am not against Gay marriage...in fact i believe that marriage in general is a little old fashioned!!
     
  14. Feb 6, 2004 #13
    I would disagree that marriage is strictly a religious thing. Marriage has been around since before the time of Christ. Ancient Egyptians were wed, Indians have dowries, the Japanese, a culture historically void of religion, take wives. All these different cultures have different marriage ceremonies.


    Dr. MLK insisted people approve of his skin color. I think gays can do the same. Some equalities are natural to fight for. The equal treatment of gays I believe falls under that category. We should not only be tolerant of their lifestyle, but accept it.
     
  15. Feb 6, 2004 #14

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is it? Maybe in the US, but certainly not everywhere. And who says that marriages can only take place in a church? The state also performs marriages, which have the same legal status. It is thus logic that the state shouldn't discriminate and allow both homo- and heterosexual marriages.
     
  16. Feb 6, 2004 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Don't kid yourself - thats what all laws are about.

    And religion - this is an issue where there are both legal and religious/moral implications. That makes it a real toughie for the government to deal with. But it has to have a position.

    Polygamy anyone?
     
  17. Feb 6, 2004 #16
    Sure...for the kids, of course!
     
  18. Feb 6, 2004 #17
    You just pointed out my only reservation for supporting gay marriage. Where should the line be drawn? If gays can be married, then why can’t a man take more than one wife.

    I don’t actually know any polygamist, but from what I have read, the communities are not very mentally healthy. Women seem forced into polygamist marriages.
     
  19. Feb 6, 2004 #18

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So that is why democracy was invented :)
     
  20. Feb 6, 2004 #19

    In some christian churches. But then again forty years ago interracial marriage was looked at as an abomination. And they came up with Bible verses to support their cause.

    But there are churches, christian churches that not only support the gay community, but perform gay marriages.

    So to the people who don't support gay marriages, why should the government only recognize marriages from bigoted churches and not progressive churches?

    And to the people who think allowing gays to marry is an infringement on your right to be a homophobe- I think bigotry is an abomination and morally reprehensible, but you don't see me telling you that you can't get married, do you?
     
  21. Feb 6, 2004 #20

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ....still thinking that marriage is old-fashioned...

    Anyway when i said religious i didnt JUST mean christian and in the US, its just that i happen to know the christian side of things because i live in a christian country (not the US!). I dont care who gets married to what!

    Polygamy....no thanks, some people say bigomy is one wife too many. Then again, most men say that about monogomy!!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Politics and marriage
  1. Did Texas Ban Marriage? (Replies: 42)

Loading...