Gay Marriage Debate - Medford, OR

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Medford, OR.

Do you support gay marriage?

Medford opposes
Oppose
 
50
Support
 
34

Vote now in Medford:

Comments
1 - 20 of 56 Comments Last updated -
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Jane doe

Tillamook, OR

#1 Aug 2, 2010
Why do people care one way or another?
On The Dole

Redmond, WA

#2 Aug 3, 2010
Because, there are those among us that believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. Furthermore, some subscribe that the gay lifestyle is a form of social deviancy.
From a personal perspective, I will not judge why people care one way, or the other, Ms. Doe.
alyson

Tillamook, OR

#3 Aug 5, 2010
It is entirely there choice I wouldn't want to be told I couldn't marry my husband. ITS NOT ABOUT THE PAPER its about he RIGHTS. we are all human and deserve the same.
On The Dole

Redmond, WA

#4 Aug 6, 2010
alyson wrote:
...ITS NOT ABOUT THE PAPER its about he RIGHTS...
Now, I'm confused.
I'm aware of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, so please explain, where does it specifically grant a man the "right" to marry a man?
7 MILLION Californians voted to keep the traditional concepts of marriage intact, and ONE progressive,(as well as gay), judge overturns the will of those people.
Are there other "rights" I'm not aware of?
Jennifer

United States

#5 Aug 7, 2010
It is wrong!
GaiaGirl

Ashland, OR

#6 Aug 7, 2010
I think there could be some kind of civil union contract which would meet the legal needs of gay partners (medical, insurance, etc. rights) without calling it a "marriage." Marriage should be one man, one woman---not just because of biblical statements. Gays don't procreate and it is just not natural or normal.
On The Dole

Redmond, WA

#7 Aug 8, 2010
I couldn't agree more!
elevenwolf

Medford, OR

#8 Aug 9, 2010
GaiaGirl wrote:
I think there could be some kind of civil union contract which would meet the legal needs of gay partners (medical, insurance, etc. rights) without calling it a "marriage." Marriage should be one man, one woman---not just because of biblical statements. Gays don't procreate and it is just not natural or normal.
Logic would dictate that we should then preclude ANY couple without the proven ability ability to reproduce. I also find it sad when the institution of marriage is reduced to sexual activity.

As to your greater point, The point for most people would be acceptable and valid, especially if the feds treated such civil unions as indistinguishable from a contract called marriage. More against this would be its social implications, as setting one class of people and relationship as somehow not containing the valid constituents of the other and therefor inferior on the face of it-at least that is the compelling arguement.
GaiaGirl

Ashland, OR

#9 Aug 9, 2010
Gays seem to be telling us they want all the LEGAL rights granted by marriage. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with gays making a mockery of true marriage between a man and a woman. It doesn't really have to do with procreation, but with what is morally acceptable in our Judeo-Christian-based society as a marriage. If they just want the rights, a civil contract would serve the purpose. But if they want to pretend they are a normal couple, then they want the label "marriage" attached to their union. Yes, we have other religions freely practiced in this country, as well as the right to practice non-religions or even paganism, which is as it should be. But originally this country's political structure was organized and founded by Christians and their basic moral standards asnd attitudes were interwoven in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Do you think our "founding fathers" would have been willing to write into the Constitution the right of individuals to practice sodomy and homosexuality as being the same as a man and woman having the right to wed? I don't think so. If you subscribe to the established religions (which the majority of people do), is it your belief that such unions would follow the precepts set forth in the Torah, the Bible, or the Quran? To the contrary, those books all specifically state that homosexuality is an abomination--which means it is punishable by everlasting death with no resurrection. If I am in error, please quote the chapter and verse of any of those books (or any other religious writing) which states homosexuality is acceptable and I will be happy to change my mind. Remember, religion was established to guide society to behave in such a way that individuals can live in peace with one another, regardless which religion you espouse. The 10 commandments and the "Golden Rule" are found in various forms across a wide range of religious writings, and form the basis for most written rules of modern society. Let the homosexuals have a written civil contract which grants them the rights enjoyed by true marriage. If they are honest about their aims, that should satisfy them. I'm betting it would not as they really want total acceptance of their lifestyle by society in general and not just the rights of a legal marriage.
elevenwolf

Medford, OR

#10 Aug 10, 2010
I think your argument epitomizes the reasons why legal union apartheid is not acceptable: what is granted legally as "separate but equal" is subverted into simply "separate" by the imposition of vigilante will.

I also find your summation on religion in terms of a Constitutional republic to be ill-informed. We are not a theocracy, we are not the Taliban, and it is not the goverment's role to act as deputy to the church in the imposition of their peculiarities of morality especially when those peculialities cannot be demonstrated to have a tangible, empirical and practical secular benefit, which clearly the banning of gay marriage does not.

As to the Founding Father's thought on this we might well also ask their thoughts on equal rights of women and blacks while we're at it. These men, far from the demi-gods we have made of them were blinded by their own cultural norms and acceptabilities, and it was left to later generations to enact the implications of their intentions when an objective review of these norms found a place in history to be called into question. That very questioning came about because of a belief of a God of order and logic, and in that spirit the Constitution was established as foundational law to supercede men and their prejudice. I would like to think the Founding Fathers would be chagrined at their own lack of illumination when they scrutinized these issues by the litmus test of their own document.

Finally citizenship, the priveleges and rights thereof should be universal in its application, and the distinction you espouse is in the end simply a means of disenfranchizement to satisfy your own bias. That and that alone is the reason why such a distinction is unacceptable.
On The Dole

Redmond, WA

#11 Aug 11, 2010
Presently, California law, for example, grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but NOT to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.
Furthermore, it is clear who is attempting to satisfy their own bias, and by exercising my right of opinion, I have determined your argument is unacceptable.
elevenwolf

Medford, OR

#12 Aug 11, 2010
On The Dole wrote:
Presently, California law, for example, grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but NOT to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.
Furthermore, it is clear who is attempting to satisfy their own bias, and by exercising my right of opinion, I have determined your argument is unacceptable.
If these term are synonymous in application, then the need for distinct terms for them is unnecessary. The mere fact of the determined effort at creating that distinction de facto establishes a determinationed effort to legally keep the door open for discrimitory values toward them, ie,in this case, to inculcate the value judgement that same-sex unions are in some manner inferior to heterosexual ones. Though this might well be your right to feel that way in the privacy of your own opinions, in the realm of civil law it is NOT acceptable and NOT your right. And in the rightful appropiation of parity I would suggest if you do not like same-sex marriage, do not marry someone of your same sex. If you object to same sex marriage, don't associate with same-sex couples. You really have no right to codify your prejudices based on some intellectual abstraction, and unless you can establish an objection based in tangibility, you need you simply oversee your own life the way you see fit and quit attempting to prevent others from doing the same.
On The Dole

Redmond, WA

#13 Aug 11, 2010
Nice play with the legalese.
However, you paint "discriminatory values" so broad, that by your own definition, social-economic class structures would be also be "discriminatory."
I have the same rights to opinion that you exemplify. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the LEGAL tangibility of this issue.
elevenwolf

Medford, OR

#14 Aug 11, 2010
On The Dole wrote:
Nice play with the legalese.
However, you paint "discriminatory values" so broad, that by your own definition, social-economic class structures would be also be "discriminatory."
I have the same rights to opinion that you exemplify. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the LEGAL tangibility of this issue.
With the exceptions of the narrow proscriptions in regard to age of consent and genetic relatedness, the State offers no criteria as to who is allowed to marry, for what reason, under what circumstances or the community impact of such a union, and to do so in regard to same sex couples is a violation of their civil right to be married. The fact of the arbitrariness of the denial same- gender unions and in the case of California the failure on the part of the defendants to establish more than theoretical grounds on which to raise their complaint against its inclusion in marriage instead an inferior apartheid substitute, which domestic patrnerships with their federal non gratis and being limited to their state of origin clearly are, I also will be very happy to see this moved to the Supreme Court, especially since Scalia and Alito for all their conservative bias against gays compensate in their love for salient fact in determining law.
casey colorado

Ashland, OR

#15 Aug 13, 2010
Marriage is a fundamental right for all citizens. It should not be denied based on the same sex of the participants
Jennifer

Houston, TX

#16 Aug 13, 2010
The American Psychological Association (APA), which is the largest organization of psychologists and clinicians in the world with over 150,000 member doctors, states collectively that being gay is normal, and it is damaging to gay people and the children raised by gay people to not allow them to marry.

Many of you argue the religious standpoint, but there are also many churches that are supportive and have analyzed scriptures and have determined that the 3 or 4 that people cite are not referring to homosexual relationships at all. Even the Methodists and Lutherans support gay marriage.

Lastly, if gay marriages are made legal, NO CHURCH will be forced to marry anyone. A lot of churches already refuse to marry people of different faiths, people that are divorced, and others.

Gay people want to be able to get a marriage license at the county courthouse and have it filed so they can protect their families. It's about life insurance, inheritance, next of kin rights at hospitals, and so on. There is no alternative system in place that provides the same protections. People already have commitment ceremonies and weddings, sometimes in their churches if the church chooses to support them, or elsewhere like at family homes, just as heterosexual people do. Gay people have been getting married for a long time anyway. The only difference legalizing gay marriage will make is that people can go buy the license and have the same protections for their families that their neighbors have. That's it, a license and legal protections that recognized kinship and family creates, no giant social change, your house won't be covered in glitter and rainbows, people will just be able to have the security of knowing that when they die the person they have shared their life with for 20 years gets to keep the house. It shouldn't be an issue.

Frankly it also really disturbing to see so many people blatantly prejudiced and calling the most significant and meaning relationship in people's lives un-natural and immoral. What if I said your marriage was just wrong? What if whole groups of people said that because you love your husband or wife that you were mentally ill and that you are no different than child molesters and people that have sex with animals? This is the kind of hateful garbage that people hear every single day because of who they fall in love with. I really don't know how people can live with themselves treating others like that, all while holding a bible in their hands. People fall in love and want to get married. It's really that basic, and to be treated like second class citizens in even our most socially advanced and diverse cities is just amazingly wrong.
elevenwolf

Medford, OR

#17 Aug 14, 2010
@Jennifer,

Great post!

Personally find it a sad commentary that after over two hundred years of the establishing Constitutional law we still have to drag America kicking and screaming into its purview.
On The Dole

Redmond, WA

#18 Aug 14, 2010
casey colorado wrote:
Marriage is a fundamental right for all citizens. It should not be denied based on the same sex of the participants
Says who?
SCOTUS jurisprudence?
Nearly 100 years ago, the Court addressed the fundamental right to marriage in the context of procreation.
Free Speech is also a fundamental right, but, it does not guarantee your right to yell "FIRE," in a crowded theater, hence, limitations.
Marriage has always had limitations.
What's next? Marrying your goldfish?
On The Dole

Redmond, WA

#19 Aug 14, 2010
"Gay people want to be able to get a marriage license at the county courthouse and have it filed so they can protect their families. It's about life insurance, inheritance, next of kin rights at hospitals, and so on. There is no alternative system in place that provides the same protections."

That is blatantly...FALSE!
California currently has ALL the protections you're worried about, without gay marriage.
elevenwolf

Medford, OR

#20 Aug 14, 2010
On The Dole wrote:
"Gay people want to be able to get a marriage license at the county courthouse and have it filed so they can protect their families. It's about life insurance, inheritance, next of kin rights at hospitals, and so on. There is no alternative system in place that provides the same protections."
That is blatantly...FALSE!
California currently has ALL the protections you're worried about, without gay marriage.
I take it then you would advocate for federal recognition and equal conferment of federal benefits on domestic partnerships/civil unions in those states where such is in place, and would advocate for the legality of domestic partnerships/civil unions in all fifty states, with those states recognizing those unions from other states. I take it you would then require business that now confer benefits soley on the status of marriage to extend those same benefits to domestic partners. I take it then you are willinng to insure that discrimination against gays and lesbians is illegal in all categories of public accomidation, as these factors relate to the well-being and security of those relationships.

If you are not willing to do that then your advocation for domestic partnerships/civil unions is just so much hot air.

Personally I and my partner of twenty-seven years registered our domestic parnership two years ago and if we were extended federal recognition and conferment, my own personal feeling is that I would be satisfied. I think a lot of that has to do with my age. But I have parried with my compatiots about this very issue and understand their feeling that any capitulation to "separate but equal" is very much a captulation to religious bigotry and the use of our government as their inquisitor. THAT in and of itself is why many younger gays and lesbians whose world this now is will not settle for any attempt at social separation through separate divisions of unions. Frankly I don't blame them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Medford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
moving to oregon (Sep '06) 3 hr Shawn D 176
joshua parker (Oct '13) 3 hr tripntwinmom 4,108
UFO spotted over Medford - anyone else see it? 12 hr UFO Spotter 1
anyone need black 17 hr Garrett 3
locating steve vorberg (Apr '08) Sat Robyn Vorberg 5
OR Who do you support for Governor in Oregon in 2010? (Oct '10) Aug 23 We Hate Coos Bay ... 204
Did anyone know Quinn Berry? (Feb '10) Aug 20 Little Red Riding... 6

Medford Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]