A quick poll.

[plonq]

Same-sex marriage and the federal sponsorship scandal have been dominating the news up here recently.  Since nobody outside of the media really cares about the sponsorship scandal, I figured I'd broach the other subject.

What are your thoughts on same-sex marriage?  I've set up a (semi-anonymous) poll on the matter.  If enough people fill it out then I will post the numbers up here in a day or two.

[Poll #435934]

Feel free to discuss the matter in the comments section.  I'm always up for a good argument chat.

Comments

[dronon.livejournal.com]

I think that since the more stubborn elements of various religious groups will never be placated on the concept of marriage, the best way to go about it is to remove the concept of marriage from government altogether. Have the government bestow civic unions to people of either gender, with all the legal benefits, rights and protections that go along. If two people want to get married (a non-bureaucratic ceremony), they can go to a church or whatnot; and if one particular church refuses to marry them, there'll be another that will. On the other hand this wouldn't exactly encourage the more intolerant religious branches to "get with today".

Taking the easy way out,

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

...and saying, "Yah! Wot e' said!"

I pretty much agree with everything dronon said, and it's all summed up very nicely in that short paragraph. If I can't have marriage, then grant me and my partner everything that comes with marriage otherwise. I have no problem with dumping the Dogma associated with the term marriage.

[plonq.livejournal.com]

I checked myself down as "indifferent" because it really doesn't affect me one way or the other, but neither am I against it.

I had an interesting discussion with a (recovering) Catholic friend a few days ago, and we took opposite sides on the debate. I was arguing the case for same-sex marriage, and he was quite firmly opposed to it.

His biggest concern was that it was tampering with long-established tradition. On the other hand, he was in favour of calling it a "civil union" and granting all of the same rights and benefits. Of course I took him to task on that and said, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then why shouldn't we just call it a duck?"

To paraphrase his reply a bit he said, "My objections to calling it a marriage are entirely emotional. I can't give you any good logical or rational reasons to defend my views, so you're just going to have to accept my answer as being that I just don't like it."

I don't share some of his views, but I appreciate his intellectual honesty.

[giza.livejournal.com]

> His biggest concern was that it was tampering with long-established
> tradition.

I never really bought that sort of answer. It kinda smacks of, "Well, we didn't think of this idea, so it sucks!"

Traditions do change over time. I do believe that once it was "tradition" for women to be treated as Second Class Citizens. But that sure changed.

> To paraphrase his reply a bit he said, "My objections to calling it a
> marriage are entirely emotional. I can't give you any good logical or
> rational reasons to defend my views, so you're just going to have to
> accept my answer as being that I just don't like it."

Okay, that puts him on my Cool List for being up front about it. I wish more people who were opposed to same sex marriage would just say that.

[unciaa.livejournal.com]

Plus, if you take 'tradition' far enough you'll hit marriage as a concept before Christianity. They borrowed it and handled it for 2000 years; we'd like it back now, you've abused the privilige, kthxbye. ;)

[atara.livejournal.com]

When I was in Germany, one of my host sisters got married. I discovered that in Germany, the church is 100% out of the legal end of getting married. A priest/minister/rabbi/whatever has no legal power to grant two people "married" status. So, first you get a civil service in which you're married in the eyes of the state. Then (usually the next weekend) you get your church wedding with the flowers and cake and whatnot.

That's really the best setup. Only the government should have the power to legally declare two people united, since they are the ones who confer the legal rights of such a union. Then let whatever deity you prefer bless your union.

[plonq.livejournal.com]

There is definitely merit in that. As the entity that controls the rights and privileges that go along with it, the government should have the final say in what constitutes a legal marriage.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

I'm for it, as long as it's not mandatory. I like misseli way too much!

[orleans.livejournal.com]

I really can't fathom why so many people seem so upset about gay people getting married. It's not like it affects them. I'm a straight guy, so I married a straight woman. End of story. I don't care who other people choose to marry as long as they are respectful and take their commitments seriously. I think that Brittney Spears inst-a-marriages in Vegas do far more harm to the institution.

But I don't agree that government should get out of the marriage institution entirely. That would mean you'd have to be religious to get married, and I'm not too keen on that. :/

[hantamouse.livejournal.com]

Is there any argument for allowing same-sex marriage that boils down to more than "Because I want to and its not fair"?
It says on my political label I'm supposed to support the idea, but I need a better reason.

[neowolf2.livejournal.com]

What's the argument for allowing opposite sex marriage?

[elfasi.livejournal.com]

How about the right to enjoy the same civil and legal benefits as heterosexual partners, like tax breaks, recognition as next of kin, all kinds of rights enshrined in law. You're gay and your partner winds up in hospital, or worse? They're not compelled to tell you about it or even let you in to visit him, only the family can. Stuff like that bothers me the most.

Then there's more basic things like wanting to shout your love from the rooftops and take part in a formal ceremony which proclaims your love and dedication to your partner, to the world at large. I don't think it's a lot to ask, to be able to enjoy all of the aforementioned things, the same as heterosexual couples. And I can't think of a single reason why homosexual couples should be denied those rights.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

First of all, you need to see this 1.48MB video.

Nobody is going to say "We iz civil unionized :-P", they are going to say "We are married". In fact, many gay couples use the word married already even when it has no legal standing. You're not going to stop people from using the word "marriage" even when they are not religious. So the idea, for example, that you could completely replace legal marriage with legal civil unions for *everyone*, and reserve religious marriage for religious institutions, is not going to work. To deny atheists, agnostics, and those who do not believe in organised religion the full rights and title of marriage would be discriminating against them on the basis of religion (or the lack of interest thereof) - and that would be just as unconsitutional as discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The whole issue has been raised in different countries/provinces/states because of conflicts with the constitution of that country/province/state, and you are not going to resolve it by replacing it with a different constitutional conflict.

I'd also like to address the issue of those who oppose same-sex marriage, not from any objection to gay rights, but from some belief that obtaining those rights through the courts is not the way to go. Given that each and every single province of Canada that has granted same-sex marriages so far has done so through a court challenge (and I don't see riots in the streets here) I really don't see the problem. Also, given that the whole issue is to make gay marriage LEGAL, I don't see how you are going to avoid lawyers getting involved somehow.

There have been several countries now that have made gay marriage legal, and several that have gone the route of civil unions. Right now, everyone who has an opinion one way or the other on this topic has an excellent opportunity to use these cases to back up their opinions, but few people do. Once same-sex marriage/civil-unions are accepted in a country, the religious objections eventually die down no matter which of the two options the country chose - so why go the route of civil unions just to placate the religious types when in the end it will make no difference to them? Also, just look at the fallacious "slippery slope" type of arguments that religious types use against same-sex marriage: they say that it will lead to legal polygamy, legal incest, and people legally marrying animals. Well, that same nonsense can be used equally well to complain about civil unions, just substitute "civil union" for "marriage". Why bother trying to placate these people by downgrading same-sex marriage to same-sex civil unions in the face of such complaints, when their complaints apply equally badly to both types of arrangement?

Another thing to learn from the countries where same-sex couples are legal is that those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons soften their opposition to it when they are reassured that they will not be forced to perform gay marriages in their churches if they don't want to, and that they will not be forced to accept gay couples joining their church. That's the tried and tested method for getting religions to accept legally binding same-sex marriages going on outside their churches. Fundamentalists will still object, but as far as I am concerned, they can go to whatever hell they believe in for being such zealous bigots.

Many gays see same-sex civil unions as a stepping stone towards full marriage rights, and in some countries that might be a logical first step. But consider the fundamentalist's point of view: to them, the downgrade from marriage to same-sex civil unions is also a stepping stone - towards no rights at all.