# Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue



## Kane (Dec 12, 2005)

Homosexual union is pretty a new concept. Never in thousands of years has this issue ever been brought up which is why there so little talk about it. Homosexuality in many cultures (especially Abrahamic cultures) is considered a wrong and a sin punishable by death. However, as we all know homosexuality does occur in Nature among other animals as well as humans. It may have something to do with upbringing, but it may also have to do with genes. In Brito-Indian culture today homosexuality is looked down upon strongly and yet there are more homosexuals there than here! So how can homosexuality be wrong if you are brought up with it?

But hey, believe whatever you want. Let gays do whatever they want and if you don't like them then don't be around them (although you should realize that it most likelly is not a wrong). Let gays do any sexual acts they want to each other.......oh yea now there is laws that protect this right . So then a couple or more decades ago sex between to consenting adults became legal. Great! Now homosexuals have all the rights they can ever have right?

Well according to some today no. Apparently they want their unions regarded equal as marriage. Well of course the truth is that marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. This tradition is more biological and dates back to homo erectus man (the first ape or our line to develop into monogamous and under rare circumstances polygamous but still devoted to a particular woman). But homosexuals in my eyes are going a bit too far want to change the definition of marriage.

Of course they will come at you with stuff like "Well marriage between two races was taboo" when in fact that was only something only taboo here in the states and Colonial Western Culture. And even if such things occurred, the bottom line remains marriage is between a man and a woman.

OK, so marriage is between a man and a woman. Yes, this is true. So why don't homosexuals create their own brand new traditional institutions of homosexual unions called "Garriage" or "Homunion" or something. Then homosexuals and homosexual "marriage" would answer back saying that they want it to be equal. Well you do have it equal, you get the same economic rights as straight married couples but it will just be called something different.

Then it hit. Why the heck are we debating the issue on what "marriage" is? Is it the government's job to set up institutions on out planet? NO, of course not! The government's job is to keep the peace and not to get too much involved with people's rights.

So why the heck are we even calling economic unions "marriage"? Why don't we just call it civil unions? Not just homosexual unions but ANY unions between two consenting adults (including man and woman). Let's leave it up to the people to decide what marriage is, not the government. It isn't the government's job to decide what is moral and immoral outside the universal moral issues as well as issues that relate more to life and death (such as euthanasia and abortion).

Don't you think this is the best solution? Let us put any of your conservative or liberal beliefs on what "marriage" is aside. Calling economic unions; civil unions will not force people to have on opinion toward a word marriage ? It&#8217;s just an union with governmental economic benefits in reality. And perhaps once this happen maybe economic unions can be extended further than the realms of sexual relation couples in love or wanting kids if you catch what I mean by that . Perhaps really close friends or best friends can get this economic union if they like too even if they are not gay. It doesn't have to relate to heterosexuality or homosexuality. I have my opinions (I believe marriage is between a man and a woman), as do others (like people who think it is okay to change the definition of marriage).

What do you think just calling it civil unions for all type of unions? I can't think of a better solution. The only way this would come to be is if liberals, conservatives, and statists come off their high horses and realize there are many ways to look at things. I myself am guilty some times of wanting things what I want right but my view is no more right than anyone elses in reality. I'm just a homo sapien sapien like anyone else .


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

There are so many bad assumptions and incorrect facts in that thought.

Sounds to me like someone is trying to rationalize an uncomfortable emotional response. I welcome your discomfort. Please continue to examine and explore these issues. I hope you find a way to become comfortable within them.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There are so many bad assumptions and incorrect facts in that thought.


 
I concur.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> What do you think just calling it civil unions for all type of unions?


 
This idea has some merit, but not as stated (roommates getting "married" even if they aren't forming a permanent family unit).

Of course, it would be less an issue if so many benefits weren't tied to marriage--health benefits, tax benefits (and occasionally penalties), inheritance rights, etc.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 12, 2005)

> Well of course the truth is that marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. This tradition is more biological and dates back to homo erectus man (the first ape or our line to develop into monogamous and under rare circumstances polygamous but still devoted to a particular woman).


 
What evidence do you have that marriage is inherent in biologic evolution? What evidence do you have that homo erectus engaged in monogamous marriage?



> And even if such things occurred, the bottom line remains marriage is between a man and a woman.


 
That doesn't follow. Why are you appealing to tradition? If homo erectus did indeed engage in monogamous marriage, how is that relevant today?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2005)

The concept of "seperate but equal" has been thrown out in the courts.

The idea of "seperate and Inequal" should also be tossed.

The idea of marriage as "man-woman" is a western one, and a recent one, as there were legal marriages between same genders prior to the rise of Judeo-Christian prudism. 

I find little to agree with in your post, except this: "The government's job is to keep the peace and not to get too much involved with people's rights."


----------



## Kane (Dec 12, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The concept of "seperate but equal" has been thrown out in the courts.
> 
> The idea of "seperate and Inequal" should also be tossed.
> 
> ...



But this solution doesn't advocate seperate but equal. The unions here are totally equal, because no one is answering what marriage is.

You still want your way it seems. You claim marriages changes over time but someone of opposing view would tell you that it doesn't matter how much marriage has been changed it must be between man and woman, which is a very a valid argument. You think in your mind you are right but the other side thinks in their mind they are right.

So who is right? Is that the government's decision to make or your own? If marriage is a religious institution or traditional institution as you say then isn't it more linked to our personal lives?

Unions in this case are equal and have the same name. Its just not forcing government to instill what marriage is?

I can't think of anything better.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2005)

But the unions aren't equal.

Those with the "marriage" title get all the rights, and privileges.

Those under the "new title" will have to fight for each one, at great cost both financially and emotionally.

Marriage is both a religious and civil institution.
The Canadian solution allows those faiths who wish to define it as "boy-girl" to do so, and not do same sex ceremonies. It also allows those who wish to wed to do so, with the same rights, responsibilities and privileges.  It doesn't create a new term, a new classification, etc.

You aren't attracted to your gender, that's fine. Don't date em, don't marry em.  But for those who are, why force them into an unnecessary battle?

I've presented the historical arguments elsewhere.

If I wish to get married in the Catholic Church, I must first obtain a civil marriage license. I then must comply with the separate requirements that the Catholic Church places on marriage.

If I wish to marry under the Jewish faith, I must first obtain a marriage license. I then must comply with the separate requirements that the Jewish faith places on marriage.

If I wish to do a simple civic ceremony, I must first obtain a marriage license.

In all these cases, there are at least 2 separate parts.  I say (and many others agree) that opening the door to the first is right. The second part can take care of itself.

Here's another question: If I have a sex change operation, who can I marry?
Under UK law, I am still my birth gender, so cannot marry.  Is that right?

As an aside, here is a link on what is required in 1 US state:
http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/pamphlets/marriage.htm


----------



## Kane (Dec 12, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> But the unions aren't equal.
> 
> Those with the "marriage" title get all the rights, and privileges.
> 
> ...



  You still don't get my point. To put it simply oh Great Lord of MT , you are still trying to put your views over someone. You may not think you are but forcing the government to take a stance on marriage does force people to acknowledge gay marriage. This has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian or whatever whether gays are wrong or right.

And no, marriage hasn't always been a civil institution per se. It is a pretty new concept giving special economic rights to married couples. No matter how you look at it this is the most neutral solution.

I hope you understood what I said. I am not saying we should call homosexual unions a different name than heterosexual unions. I am saying that they should be under one name: civil union. In any case that is what it is after all: a civil union.

Do you understand what I am saying now? Why should people the government take a stance on a private matter? Liberals want it there way, conservatives want it there way. This not a separate but equal concept, it is just the government is not forced to take a stance on marriage.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> You still don't get my point. To put it simply oh Great Lord of MT , you are still trying to put your views over someone. You may not think you are but forcing the government to take a stance on marriage does force people to acknowledge gay marriage. This has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian or whatever whether gays are wrong or right.



Someone is always trying to put their views over someone. You are here. I am not forcing the Government to take a stand. It already has, based on the pushing of a small but vocal group of bigots. It needs to put that and it's own personal feelings aside and do what is right for the people.



> And no, marriage hasn't always been a civil institution per se. It is a pretty new concept giving special economic rights to married couples. No matter how you look at it this is the most neutral solution.



So, what rights will these Unions have?  How do name changes, hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, living wills, taxation, etc fit into your idea?



> I hope you understood what I said. I am not saying we should call homosexual unions a different name than heterosexual unions. I am saying that they should be under one name: civil union. In any case that is what it is after all: a civil union.



 So, if we are to rename "marriage" to "Civil Union", what is your answer to those married couples who will object to the name change?



> Do you understand what I am saying now? Why should people the government take a stance on a private matter? Liberals want it there way, conservatives want it there way. This not a separate but equal concept, it is just the government is not forced to take a stance on marriage.



The government had to step in to remove previous legislated restrictions on gender and racial biases. The government in the US now seeks to lock down definitions to further exclude 20-25% of the population. Once it does this, it opens the door to further rights abuses.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

Would the govt. grant any rights to those in a civil union? Different treatment under the tax laws, different inheritance rights, etc., as we now have for those who are married?


----------



## Kane (Dec 12, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Someone is always trying to put their views over someone. You are here. I am not forcing the Government to take a stand. It already has, based on the pushing of a small but vocal group of bigots. It needs to put that and it's own personal feelings aside and do what is right for the people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No I'm not. I only told my opinion, I personally against homosexual "marriage" but you are for it. All I'm saying is that if we create a civil union totally neutral then we wouldn't have to worry about anything. If gays want they can call themselves married, and no one is going to bother them.

Why do you think anyone oppose to homosexual marriage are bigots? You do realize that someone on the opposite side can easily use that against you don't you?

About your first sentance "Someone has alreadytrying to put their views on others." I assume you mean our neoconservative government? Although I share their same opinion on what marriage is I disagree that they should force what marriage is down people who disagree's throats. Get it? It is no better if a liberal took power and called homosexual unions marriage, we all know there would be people oppose to this.

I think you are still misunderstanding what I am saying. When I say "civil unions" I mean all rights straight couples have today such as the stuff you mentioned such as hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, living wills, taxation, etc fit into your idea? It is the same thing as "marriage" but just called civil unions and it will be open to any type of consenting adults. There is no seperate but equal in this solution, its just taking the word marriage out of government for people to make it out any way they place.


----------



## Kane (Dec 12, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Would the govt. grant any rights to those in a civil union? Different treatment under the tax laws, different inheritance rights, etc., as we now have for those who are married?



No difference, exactly the same for both type of unions. It just won't be called marriage anymore for both type of unions. Its totally harmless and if liberals and conservatives just put their beliefs on what marriage is it will work. Remember this is totally equal; same name, same everything! Its just not called marriage for both unions .


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Why do you think anyone oppose to homosexual marriage are bigots?


 
Well, it doesn't seem to actually affect anyone but the couple involved, so opposition to it must be based on discomfort with the idea more than the effect it would have on the person who opposes it. Perhaps 'bigot' is too strong, but what would it matter to a heterosexual if a homosexual got married? Why should they care?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, it doesn't seem to actually affect anyone but the couple involved, so opposition to it must be based on discomfort with the idea more than the effect it would have on the person who opposes it. Perhaps 'bigot' is too strong, but what would it matter to a heterosexual if a homosexual got married? Why should they care?


You missed the point Arni.  Remember, if we let gays marry it would "destroy the sanctity of marriage", promote bestiality, child molestation and possibly even bring down our society.

Because we know that straight marriages have a high rate of success, stability and never harm our kids.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> No I'm not. I only told my opinion, I personally against homosexual "marriage" but you are for it. All I'm saying is that if we create a civil union totally neutral then we wouldn't have to worry about anything. If gays want they can call themselves married, and no one is going to bother them.



Ok, so when you voice your opinion, it is just that, an opinion.

But when I do, it's "pushing my agenda".  Ok, got it.



> Why do you think anyone oppose to homosexual marriage are bigots? You do realize that someone on the opposite side can easily use that against you don't you?



a- Because the ones complaining the loudest will not in any way, shape or form be harmed by it.  It would be as if I started complaining about the dangers of Country Line Dancing. 

b- Well, I guess they could incorrectly define me as a 'gay', 'gay lover' or worse yet, an 'open minded progressive'.



> About your first sentance "Someone has alreadytrying to put their views on others." I assume you mean our neoconservative government? Although I share their same opinion on what marriage is I disagree that they should force what marriage is down people who disagree's throats. Get it? It is no better if a liberal took power and called homosexual unions marriage, we all know there would be people oppose to this.



People were opposed to integration, womans rights, and allowing anyone not a white male over 18 to vote. All that "progressive rights" stuff had to be pushed through, against the publics wish, for the public good. 



> I think you are still misunderstanding what I am saying. When I say "civil unions" I mean all rights straight couples have today such as the stuff you mentioned such as hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, living wills, taxation, etc fit into your idea? _*It is the same thing as "marriage" but just called civil unions*_ and it will be open to any type of consenting adults. There is no seperate but equal in this solution, its just taking the word marriage out of government for people to make it out any way they place.



Then why change the name if it is the same?


----------



## Kane (Dec 12, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Ok, so when you voice your opinion, it is just that, an opinion.
> 
> But when I do, it's "pushing my agenda".  Ok, got it.
> 
> ...


  First of all you are getting way to passionate here . Calm down, take a couple drink . 

Secondly I'm not pushing my agenda. If I was I would be saying that gay marriages should be banned by the constitution. Again you want it your way. Liberals may think they are nothing like conservatives and that they are open-minded "progressives". That whole premise that they assume about themselves is wrong because they think in their mind they are doing things right. But a conservative would have the same opinion here in other issues. What makes you any more "progressive" than a conservative? Being for a strong economic government-weak social government doesn't make you "progressive" or open-minded.

I voiced my opinion on same-sex marriage; I am opposed to the word marriage used on same-sex unions because it is not marriage. That's my opinion, but my opinion is no more valid than yours, right? Well then a truly neutral solution is the one I am advocating here. I don't know why it is so hard to see it bud . Oh glorious president of MT, do you get it now?:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2005)

I think my accurate title would be "Dictator for life, grand poobah of the bahpoos, and all around hoopy frood who knows where his towel is.".


Seriously though, as I asked "Then why change the name if it is the same?"


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 12, 2005)

Kane,

You didn't answer my previous questions.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

The word 'marriage' has all sorts of wonderful connotations to it, that are not included in the homophobic definition of "a union of one man and one woman". 

The word 'marriage' means more than a union ... here are a few words that are wrapped up within the term 'marriage' ...

... soul-mate
... lover
... partner
... better-half
... friend

... but these words are not inclusive of the term 'civil union'. 

Hell, TIME and WARNER formed a civil union, then AOL and TIME-WARNER formed a civil union.

Marriage is so much more than a 'union'.

Kane is trying slight of hand .... hey, let's call all legal associations a civil union; so the state doesn't sanction marriage. What he is not saying, but I am inferring, is that 'marriage' would still be available as a term within a religion; kind-a like a secret handshake.

The correct question is .... why should gay couple be denied all of the wonderful connotations within the word 'marriage'? 

Why can't our gay friends have 'soul-mates', 'lovers', and 'better-halfs'?


----------



## Kane (Dec 12, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> What evidence do you have that marriage is inherent in biologic evolution? What evidence do you have that homo erectus engaged in monogamous marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't follow. Why are you appealing to tradition? If homo erectus did indeed engage in monogamous marriage, how is that relevant today?


[FONT=&quot]
Hey floated egg sorry I didn't address your post earlier.

 I am not saying marriage is a biological evolution; its more or less a biological tradition. Homo erectus didn't engage in the actual marriage ceremony, but that is beside the point. These are more or less the beginnings of marriage.

 What is my point of this particular tradition? I feel particular strong about the tradition......well you know how people feel about tradition . I'm not saying that my beliefs are any more valid than your own, so that is why the solution should work out the best. [/FONT]


----------



## Kane (Dec 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The word 'marriage' has all sorts of wonderful connotations to it, that are not included in the homophobic definition of "a union of one man and one woman".
> 
> The word 'marriage' means more than a union ... here are a few words that are wrapped up within the term 'marriage' ...
> 
> ...



I don't see why anyone has to view "a union of one man and one woman" homophobic. I don't don't hate gays. Why don't you call this a racial issue to?

And you can easily use those terms for anything like. Why not call your cat a soul mate or lover? Certianly if we use these words to define marriage it would not fall in the realms of only that other union but all unions.

But HEY? What's wrong with thinking marriage is between a you and your cat? Who really cares what you do and what you believe. Believe what you want. If you want a symbolic union between you and your cat marry if you like. Reality can be anything you want, so can marriage. If you think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that is good. Most likelly most people will agree with but it certianly doesn't force to the state to take a stance on the issue.

If marriage becomes a term within religion, fine go ahead. It certianly doesn't force someone to agree with you on the subject. You want people to view homosexual unions equal to marriage? Start going around and telling your message. You can change anything you like in society but the government should always remain neutral.

How can anything else be more logic than this solutionl? Its only the people who strongly believe in their belief whatever it maybe that wants marriage to be their way.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 12, 2005)

> Of course, it would be less an issue if so many benefits weren't tied to marriage--health benefits, tax benefits (and occasionally penalties), inheritance rights, etc.


 
*DING!!!*


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I don't see why anyone has to view "a union of one man and one woman" homophobic. I don't don't hate gays. Why don't you call this a racial issue to?
> 
> And you can easily use those terms for anything like. Why not call your cat a soul mate or lover? Certianly if we use these words to define marriage it would not fall in the realms of only that other union but all unions.
> 
> ...


 
I'm trying to envision a cat describing a 'soul-mate' and 'better-half' as a homo sapien. I'm trying to envision a cat standing in front of a preacher. It just ain't workin' for me. 

What can be more logical, is for people to look at gay people and  *identify with *the things that are common between them, rather than see how they are *apart from* each other. 

Gay people love their soul-mates.
Gay people love their parents.
Gay people love their children.

Obviously, with beliefs like those, these people can't be given the same respect as 'normal' people.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 12, 2005)

> I am not saying marriage is a biological evolution; its more or less a biological tradition. Homo erectus didn't engage in the actual marriage ceremony, but that is beside the point. These are more or less the beginnings of marriage.


 
Could you please clarify your claim concerning biological tradition? What do you mean by your use of _more or less_ in your reference to the beginnings of marriage?




> I'm not saying that my beliefs are any more valid than your own, so that is why the solution should work out the best.


 

Either you have good reasons for your beliefs or you do not. If you review my posts, you'll notice that I have not made any claims; instead, I have questioned yours, with the intent of discovering a cogent argument.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 12, 2005)

I'm going to weigh in with Kane here.  

In my opinion, and in my experience, secular "marriage" is nothing but a legal and financial contract, and not even a very good or well defined contract.  (Most people don't even know what they've signed until they try to dissolve the contract!)  

Now if you want to talk about love, personal commitment, and soul mates, what does that have to do with legalities and finance?  Nothing.

So in my opinion, the legal "union" should be separate from the spiritual "marriage."  You want a legal union?  Fine.  Any two consenting adults should be able to sign on the dotted line.  You want a spiritual marriage?  Go ahead, make your declaration before your creator.

But I have to agree that if people were assured health insurance and social security, the need for the legal union would be obviated.

By the way, please stop the conflation of Jewish tradition and Christian tradition.  Catchy as the phrase "Judeo-Christian" may be, a canopy, two witnesses, and the appropriate words make a Jewish marriage.  Period. Christians usually require a religious leader to officiate.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

I used to be of the mind that the gay marriage issue was about 'rights'. Gay partners should have survivor benefits, file joint income taxes and the like. 

But, there is much more to 'marriage' than what people don't know they are signing ... the stuff that is difficult to define ... lovey, gushey, stuff. Aren't they entitled to that too. 

It's not so much about standing before your creator ... but celebrating all the mushey stuff. Can't our gay friends share that?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 12, 2005)

> It's not so much about standing before your creator ... but celebrating all the mushey stuff. Can't our gay friends share that?


 
Absolutely.

But what's that got to do with a marriage license?


----------



## bignick (Dec 12, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I don't don't hate gays.



It's been a bit since I've taken some high school algebra or english course...but how do double negatives work again?


Kane, how do you feel about other areas of the world where young girls are married to trees and animals.  The thing michealedward pointed out, and you didn't deny, is that heterosexual people would still be able to use the term "marriage" within a religious context.

So let's get this straight, we call everything civil unions and give everyone equal rights.  But then straight "unions" can still use the term marriage because there religious institution allows it.  Well, there are legitimate churches out there that would recognize a gay "union" as a marriage...

So we force everyone to use the term "civil union" except for when they are "married" through a religious ceremony, which most gays would probably be able to obtain anyways........

Why not just save 37 headaches, stop trying to look progressive while trying to come up with ways to still deny gays marriage and just let them do what they want.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

It's a civil rights issue to me...and 'separate but equal' is the key phrase. We know better by now! The benefits are the practical part of it, but there' smore to it than that.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 17, 2005)

I will just speak from first-hand experience. Fed up with the constant state of legal discrimination that my partner and I had to face while living in the US, we finally decided to migrate and move back to my home country (Spain) where we got married exactly one week ago. For us, marriage is the legal recognition between two consenting adults to organize their lives together and protect one another. It is a civil institution, not a religious one, and hence we have no problem in calling it "marriage." Marriage as a religious manifestations takes multiple forms (from monogamy in Christianity to poligamy in islam) and should be separate from how citizens are treated in front of the law. Today I am a happily married woman who enjoyes, for the first time in her life, the full protection of the law (from healthcare to taxes to immigration rights). Whatever you say, the sense of dignity, equality, and happiness my partner and I enjoy today cannot be taken away. I could not care less what your particular religious dogma thinks of my union, as I am a citizen of a free, democratic state that puts the well'being of its individual citizens above the interests of a dogmatized few.
Finally, to compare the union of two committed individuals to that of a person and a goat (or a cat) is intellectually stupid and morally reprehensible. My partner and I have gone through thick and thin together (putting up with many more obstacles than most hetero couples do in the course of their lifetime). Today, our union symbolizes the respect and love that we still have for one another despite so many difficulties... so please if that's your only argument, drop it. It's rather insulting. 
And oh! Yes, us evil gays and lesbians "have an agenda," right? (i.e. the recognition of our rights) but bible/quran/torah thumpers and political pundits hellbent on denying us our rights don't??????????? GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 17, 2005)

To the folks who insist that they don't "hate us," yet spend so much ink and effort on trying to deny us the most essential rights to live our lives in peace and tranquility with the full protection of the law, I say: please, *spare us.* Your sympathy, tolerance, or "acceptance" is of no relevance to how we live our lives. It doesn't make you "cool" to be "tolerant" of homosexuality: it simply makes you a closeted homophobe. We are not to be "tolerated," but respected as individuals with equal rights. Got it?


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 17, 2005)

Finally, for the people who care so much about terminology: the word "salary" comes form the latin "salarium," because at a certain time in the Roman Empire salaries were paid... well, in salt. Today, we use the word "salary" with a complete different meaning. Why? Because languages evolve and adapt to different social realities, and terming our unions marriage symbolizes the legal recognition of our unions on the same standing with those of committed heterosexual couples. As simple as that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 17, 2005)

:cheers: to Ave.

Thank you.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> I will just speak from first-hand experience. Fed up with the constant state of legal discrimination that my partner and I had to face while living in the US, we finally decided to migrate and move back to my home country (Spain) where we got married exactly one week ago. For us, marriage is the legal recognition between two consenting adults to organize their lives together and protect one another. It is a civil institution, not a religious one, and hence we have no problem in calling it "marriage." Marriage as a religious manifestations takes multiple forms (from monogamy in Christianity to poligamy in islam) and should be separate from how citizens are treated in front of the law. Today I am a happily married woman who enjoyes, for the first time in her life, the full protection of the law (from healthcare to taxes to immigration rights). Whatever you say, the sense of dignity, equality, and happiness my partner and I enjoy today cannot be taken away. I could not care less what your particular religious dogma thinks of my union, as I am a citizen of a free, democratic state that puts the well'being of its individual citizens above the interests of a dogmatized few.
> Finally, to compare the union of two committed individuals to that of a person and a goat (or a cat) is intellectually stupid and morally reprehensible. My partner and I have gone through thick and thin together (putting up with many more obstacles than most hetero couples do in the course of their lifetime). Today, our union symbolizes the respect and love that we still have for one another despite so many difficulties... so please if that's your only argument, drop it. It's rather insulting.
> And oh! Yes, us evil gays and lesbians "have an agenda," right? (i.e. the recognition of our rights) but bible/quran/torah thumpers and political pundits hellbent on denying us our rights don't??????????? GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!


 

As I read this post, I thought about posting one of the cheering smiley's, or an applause smiley or something else celebratory in nature. Then I thought again.

Let me as quietly and in as dignified a manner as is possible on an internet forum wish you and your partner well, now and in the future.

Congratulations.

Mike


----------



## Lisa (Dec 17, 2005)

Ave,

:asian:

Lisa


----------



## arnisador (Dec 17, 2005)

Congratulations on your marriage, and thanks for sharing your thoughts here!


----------



## Kane (Dec 17, 2005)

Hey Ave! Youre entitled to your own opinions but I do know homosexuals that are oppose to same-sex "marriage". Many of which are my friend, but I do have gay friends who are for it. Anyways you have a point in your belief but just because you do it doesn't mean the opposing view does not. Liberals want it there way, conservatives want it there way. Who is right? Why can't we either;

1. Decide this in a centrist fashion and have two separate but equal institutions

2. Or just become completely neutral to what the word marriage means. Meaning economic unions are called civil unions for both types of unions seems the best way to remain neutral.

Heck I know gays that would not called a union between a man and a woman marriage! Obviously the word "marriage" is causing more trouble than solutions in a couple parts in the world. This is why eliminating the word from government is the best solution IMHO.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2005)

Kane ... it has nothing to do with the 'word' ... it has everything to do with the meaning of the word.

And despite your wishes ... the word means what the word means. And while all languages grow and evolved, right now the meaning of that word is denied to the gay population in this country.

 ... with Liberty and Justice for All ... well, not really!


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 17, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Hey Ave! You&#8217;re entitled to your own opinions but I do know homosexuals that are oppose to same-sex "marriage". Many of which are my friend, but I do have gay friends who are for it. Anyways you have a point in your belief but just because you do it doesn't mean the opposing view does not. Liberals want it there way, conservatives want it there way. Who is right? Why can't we either;
> 
> 1. Decide this in a centrist fashion and have two separate but equal institutions
> 
> ...



What you do not seem to understand is that *this is neither a liberal nor a conservative issue*, but a human rights issue that tackles the most fundamental and essential values contained in your Constitution and those of other self-proclaimed democratic nations. If your argument is "let&#180;s do away with marriage altogether so gays cannot participate in it and nobody gets offended," what good are you serving? For instance in Spain conservatives opposed the new law with the argument over the word "marriage." Paradoxically, from 1996 to 2004 they were *8 years* in control of Parliament and *they rejected on THIRTY-EIGHT different occasions the drafting of a civil unions law* (not marriage, but civil unions). Which, at least to me, proves that the dispute has nothing to do with the wording, but with the opposition of some people to granting gay and lesbian citizens equal rights. 

I love it when straight people say "I have a gay friend who..." I suppose you also have a Jewish friend, an African-American friend, and possibly a Latino friend conveniently stacked in the "Useful friends for needed occasions" drawer, right? Please, do not try to convince me of the merits of your argument based on what your gay "friends" have to say. I need arguments more serious than that.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 17, 2005)

I hate it when I DO have gay, black, latino friends but I cant talk about what they tell me because people always sneer at it. Are you saying that hes lying?


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 17, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I hate it when I DO have gay, black, latino friends but I cant talk about what they tell me because people always sneer at it. Are you saying that hes lying?



No. I am simply saying it is absolutely and completely irrelevant to the discussion. The truth of the matter is there are millions of gay and lesbian citizens and residents of the United States (not to speak of other countries where gays and lesbians can be imprisoned, tortured, or killed) who are not fully protected by the law despite what the US constitution says. I do not dispute there may be gay and lesbian individuals who do not want legalized same-sex marriage, just as there were uncle toms in the African American community who preferred to keep a "low profile" and subject themselves to second-class citizenship in order not to upset the status quo. Unfortunately, second-class citizenship is second-class citizenship nevertheless, and what Kane&#180;s gay friends think is not going to change the substance of this matter: that a self-professed free and democratic nation (the US) treats its citizens differently and accords them a different treatment in the eyes of the law depending on how they choose to live their lives. My partner is an American citizen: she had to leave her own country, fed up with the constant discrimination and the legal obstacles we confronted in leading a ***normal*** life, something that in the end proved to be an impossible task. Wt got married last friday: three days later, my partner obtained legal residency in Spain, applied for healthcare as my spouse, and is now a happy and content resident of a foreign nation. If what you want is a country that treats its gay and lesbian citizens as crap, by all means: Holland, Sweden, Spain, Canada or Belgium and other civilized nations will be content to open their arms to gay and lesbian Americans. The truth is the world is moving in one direction and the United States, with its totalitarian theistic worldview and policies is moving in the opposite direction (a direction more similar to that of countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or Nigeria). Congratulations to you on this monumental step backwards.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 17, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> :cheers: to Ave.
> 
> Thank you.



Thanks boss! 

(and thanks everyone else) :asian:


----------



## Kane (Dec 17, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> What you do not seem to understand is that *this is neither a liberal nor a conservative issue*, but a human rights issue that tackles the most fundamental and essential values contained in your Constitution and those of other self-proclaimed democratic nations. If your argument is "let&#180;s do away with marriage altogether so gays cannot participate in it and nobody gets offended," what good are you serving? For instance in Spain conservatives opposed the new law with the argument over the word "marriage." Paradoxically, from 1996 to 2004 they were *8 years* in control of Parliament and *they rejected on THIRTY-EIGHT different occasions the drafting of a civil unions law* (not marriage, but civil unions). Which, at least to me, proves that the dispute has nothing to do with the wording, but with the opposition of some people to granting gay and lesbian citizens equal rights.
> 
> I love it when straight people say "I have a gay friend who..." I suppose you also have a Jewish friend, an African-American friend, and possibly a Latino friend conveniently stacked in the "Useful friends for needed occasions" drawer, right? Please, do not try to convince me of the merits of your argument based on what your gay "friends" have to say. I need arguments more serious than that.



What? Its a human rights issue? Having the name "marriage" for homosexual unions is a human right? I am sure the UN would disagree with you on that! Most of the world would disagree with you on that as well. Not just the fundie religious people either.

You can believe whatever you want, but I advise you not to bring race into this. You know as well as I do this has nothing to with racial issues and that all races can do anything any other race can. If there is any bias in our country it is against white people as they are viewed as "evil oppressive colonial whites". Don't compare this to race, because only Klu Klux Klan and Black Nations of Islam believe in racial discrimination (along with any other white or black supremacy group).

This whole thread is filled with arguments that is trying to show you that your view is no more right or no more wrong than someone on the opposite side. You want it your way. You want the government to use the "marriage". Are you that insecure? I ask the same thing to straight couple who are against any type of homosexual union. Why do you want to government to enforce what marriage is and is not?

Gays and lesbians do have equal rights. They can get "married" too, as in most nations marriage is between a man and a woman. What we are trying to do is change a system and claim it does not give equal rights.


----------



## Kane (Dec 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Kane ... it has nothing to do with the 'word' ... it has everything to do with the meaning of the word.
> 
> And despite your wishes ... the word means what the word means. And while all languages grow and evolved, right now the meaning of that word is denied to the gay population in this country.
> 
> ... with Liberty and Justice for All ... well, not really!



Liberty huh? How is it liberty when you force people to believe marriage as your way? Why don't we instill Christianity as our national religion? Maybe Judaism? If the government is going to take a stance on homosexual unions why doesn't it take a stance religion?

I don't see how the solution I am proposing is anymore for liberty than your own? I guess liberals convince themselves that they are for liberty when in fact they are against economic liberty (just how conservatives are for economic liberty but oppose to moral liberty). The only ideology that is all for liberty if libertarionism. Not that it is the best ideology but whenever a liberal or conservative brings up liberty I laugh.


----------



## bignick (Dec 17, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> What? Its a human rights issue? Having the name "marriage" for homosexual unions is a human right? I am sure the UN would disagree with you on that! Most of the world would disagree with you on that as well. Not just the fundie religious people either.
> 
> You can believe whatever you want, but I advise you not to bring race into this. You know as well as I do this has nothing to with racial issues and that all races can do anything any other race can. If there is any bias in our country it is against white people as they are viewed as "evil oppressive colonial whites". Don't compare this to race, because only Klu Klux Klan and Black Nations of Islam believe in racial discrimination.
> 
> ...



Ummm....can someon explain this argument to me?  I couldn't follow...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 17, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Liberty huh? How is it liberty when you force people to believe marriage as your way? Why don't we instill Christianity as our national religion? Maybe Judaism? If the government is going to take a stance on homosexual unions why doesn't it take a stance religion?



Some might say we did just that (instill one particular view of Christianity) as our national religion when we appointed Gov. Bush to the White House. The question on why doesn't the government take a stance is that it is not allowed to (though many politicians slip it in anyway) due to an idea called "Separation of Church and State".



> I don't see how the solution I am proposing is anymore for liberty than your own? I guess liberals convince themselves that they are for liberty when in fact they are against economic liberty (just how conservatives are for economic liberty but oppose to moral liberty). The only ideology that is all for liberty if libertarionism. Not that it is the best ideology but whenever a liberal or conservative brings up liberty I laugh.



We are discussing the granting of the -same- rights to same gender relationships as are given to opposite gender relationships.

You are arguing about a term. Arguing for changing the term is not the same as granting rights.

I can call this *RED *but it will not make it so, nor will it stop others from calling it "Blue".

The rest of your argument has me a bit confused here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 17, 2005)

2 people spend years together. They want to take care of each other, they want to look out for each other, they want to be there through thick and thin for their partner. These 2 individuals love each other and are very committed. They want to build a future together. They want to ensure that in the event of a problem, or worse, a tragedy, that they can be there for each other, and if the worse should happen, that the other will be taken care of.

I do not see how this is somehow wrong just because in relationship B they are the same gender, but ok in relationship A because they are different.

The definition (since that is what alot of the problem here is) differs depending on who you consult.

Wiki - "Marriage in most parts of the world is the legal union of one man and one woman. In some countries, a man can also be legally married to as many as four wives. But in the last few years, a few countries have changed the law to allow two men or two women to get married, even though the other countries do not recognize this." http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriage&diff=next&oldid=69106

It gets more complex from here:

Definitions of marriage on the Web:

    * the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
    * two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
    * the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
    * a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
      wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    * Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. ...
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

    * The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
www.answers.com/topic/the-devil-s-dictionary

    * the ceremony of union of man and wife was a sacrament of the church
      medievalwriting.50megs.com/churchglossary/glossaryi.htm

    * A contractually committed partnership, including sexualove, cohabitation, shared economy/property and mutual childrearing.
www.number-one-adult-sexual-health-terms-advisor.com/relationshipstyles.htm

    * Historically, a relationship between a male, a female and their families whose primary purpose is to raise offspring. Today many people use the word to describe a committed, loving relationship with or without children.
www.familysynergy.org/art-poly.html

    * Age-specific first marriage rates For men (or women), the age-specific first marriages rates are obtained by dividing the number of first marriages of men (or women) of a given age by the number of never married men (or women) in the same age at June 30.
www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/glossary.html

    * Socially approved and legally acknowledged emotional, sexual, and economic relationship between two or more individuals.
www.elissetche.org/dico/M.htm

    * An alternative name for the Beatitude, the fourth stage of the after-life, conceived of as the symbolic marriage of the Spirit and the Celestial Body.
www.yeatsvision.com/Terminology.html

    * [1] A community consisting of two people; a master, a mistress and two slaves [Ambrose Bierce]. [2] A book, in which the first chapter is written in poetry, the remainder in prose. [Beverly Nichols]
www.wordskit.com/words/word-m.shtml

    * Prior to 2003, marriage was defined as the legal conjugal union of two persons of the opposite sex. Since 2003, the definition of marriage has been changed in some provinces and territories to include the legal conjugal union of two persons of the same sex. Common-law relationships are excluded.
www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/84F0212XIE/2002/definitions.htm

    * A set of cultural rules for bringing men and women together to create a family unit and for defining their behavior toward one another, their children, and society.
      highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html

    * Socially-approved sexual and economic union, usually of a male and a female, that is assumed to be more or less permanent.
www.killgrove.org/ANT220/cultanthdef.html

    * a more or less stable union, usually between two people, who are likely, but not necessarily, to be co-resident, sexually involved with each other, and procreative with each other.
www.geocities.com/brianmyhre/8Def.htm

    * a sexual union between a man and a woman. This relationship or union unites the man and the woman as one spiritual body or one unit under God (recall that God is everywhere and is always present). This is similar to becoming born-again which unites or reconnects the person into the Holy Spirit or the body of Christ. See the commentary on Divorce for a more detail definition.
www.exit109.com/~apg/glossary.htm

    * Matchmaking | Jewish view of marriage | Role of women in Judaism | Niddah | Mikvah | Tzeniut
      encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Menorah

    * A person qualified and duly licensed in the state in which the person lives to practice marriage, family, and child counseling and who has a Master's Degree from an accredited institution of higher learning.
www.payorid.com/glossary.asp

    * A legally recognized union of a man and a woman by ceremony or common law.
www.dhs.dc.gov/dhs/cwp/view,a,1345,q,605720,dhsNav_GID,1728,.asp


----------



## Kane (Dec 17, 2005)

As we can see marriage can mean many different things. I have my own views on marriage. You have your own. What harm will it do if the government remains neutral to what marriage means?

Some cultures permit marriage between many different spouses. Husband with many wives, and vice versa. No matter how you look at marriage is a very reletive term and the government should not take a stance on it.


----------



## bignick (Dec 17, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Some cultures permit marriage between many different spouses. Husband with many wives, and vice versa. No matter how you look at marriage is a very reletive term and the government should not take a stance on it.



Then why do you want the government to obliterate the use of the word marriage all together and use "civil union".   That's taking a pretty big "stance" in my opinion.


----------



## Kane (Dec 17, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> Then why do you want the government to obliterate the use of the word marriage all together and use "civil union". That's taking a pretty big "stance" in my opinion.



  Because it is a neutral way to handle this issue. Marriage means different things too many different people so shouldn't the government refrain from defining what it is?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 17, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Because it is a neutral way to handle this issue. Marriage means different things too many different people so shouldn't the government refrain from defining what it is?


 How about we call two people who are male and female and get married 'married'.  If they are homosexual, we'll call it a 'civil union' and grant the same rights as married people?  They can even call themselves married, but on the certificate it'll say 'civil union certificate'?

Bottom line is, though, WHO CARES?!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 17, 2005)

The ones who want to know why we need 2 different terms to describe the same thing, who will end up fighting numerous battles over continued misunderstanding of what rights they have.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> What harm will it do if the government remains neutral to what marriage means?


 
The government does take a stand on marriage, and that stance is currently *not* neutral. 

That's the problem. 

Oh, and your perpetuation of thinking the governments' stance is neutral ... that's the problem too.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> How about we call two people who are male and female and get married 'married'. If they are homosexual, we'll call it a 'civil union' and grant the same rights as married people? They can even call themselves married, but on the certificate it'll say 'civil union certificate'?
> 
> Bottom line is, though, WHO CARES?!


 

Are you married? 

Ask your spouse if she/he would be ok with that?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Are you married?
> 
> Ask your spouse if she/he would be ok with that?


 I prefer 'living in sin'.  Marriage is just a piece of paper.  I've been married, it wasn't that spectacular.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I prefer 'living in sin'. Marriage is just a piece of paper. I've been married, it wasn't that spectacular.


 
I hope you never have to find out whether your belief that "marriage is just a peice of paper" is relevant, or not.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I hope you never have to find out whether your belief that "marriage is just a peice of paper" is relevant, or not.


 No, i'm sure marriage is just a piece of paper.  The commitment behind it is entirely seperate from any license issued by the state.  Those who think they are one and the same, are fools.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, i'm sure marriage is just a piece of paper. The commitment behind it is entirely seperate from any license issued by the state. Those who think they are one and the same, are fools.


 
Unless God then elects to cast you into the lake of fire.


----------



## bignick (Dec 17, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Because it is a neutral way to handle this issue.



No, it isn't.  The only way the government can be "neutral" on something is leave it up to the individual to do whatever they want.  Accordingly, the government really isn't "neutral" on anything.  Your proposal would basically abolish the institution of marriage in America, hardly a neutral position.


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The government does take a stand on marriage, and that stance is currently *not* neutral.
> 
> That's the problem.
> 
> Oh, and your perpetuation of thinking the governments' stance is neutral ... that's the problem too.


 
  Yes, it isn't now is it? I never said our government had a neutral stance on the issue. Are you even reading my posts?? Or are you just skimming it blindly assuming that I love how the government is currently handeling the situation.

  I may share the same *view*, that marriage is only between a man and a woman. But I disagree that the government should force this upon people. I also disagree that the government should force what people to to have the view that marriage can be polygamy or between two adults of the same gender.

  What you are trying to do (as you have done so many times before) is assume you know what I am thinking. You did it in the evolution thread, this thread, and it seems like in the universal health care or public education thread.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> How about we call two people who are male and female and get married 'married'. If they are homosexual, we'll call it a 'civil union' and grant the same rights as married people? They can even call themselves married, but on the certificate it'll say 'civil union certificate'?
> 
> Bottom line is, though, WHO CARES?!


 
 I agree. Why can't people just except the seperate but equal doctrine? Perhaps most people would not disagree with this but a few. Who cares? Well a few do care I guess. So the calling marriage civil unions for all types of unions seems to remain completly neutral and doesn't force the tiny minority to believe that they must have that word.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> No, it isn't. The only way the government can be "neutral" on something is leave it up to the individual to do whatever they want. Accordingly, the government really isn't "neutral" on anything. Your proposal would basically abolish the institution of marriage in America, hardly a neutral position.



No, the instituation of marriage will remain but it won't be a government spons. ideology.

Can you think of a more neutral solution?


----------



## bignick (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> No, the instituation of marriage will remain but it won't be a government spons. ideology.



Who's sponsoiring it, and how do people obtain a marriage then?


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> Who's sponsoiring it, and how do people obtain a marriage then?



From their church or whatever. Heck they can get marriage whatever way they want. The government can give them the civil unions, whether straight or gay. That way anyone can use the term "marriage" anyway they like.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I agree. Why can't people just except the seperate but equal doctrine? Perhaps most people would not disagree with this but a few. Who cares? Well a few do care I guess. So the calling marriage civil unions for all types of unions seems to remain completly neutral and doesn't force the tiny minority to believe that they must have that word.


 I really don't care what offends the tiny minority.  Every little thing in life does not need to be fair to every person.  The stated argument about why we need civil unions is things like insurance, partner rights in making decisions in time of illness and death, and contracts.  If that's all just a ruse, admit it.  However, if that's the stated purpose, then why argue the little point of what to call it.  I find the whole idea of semantics asinine in the extreme.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Unless God then elects to cast you into the lake of fire.


 Oh pooh.  If he's there, he'll do what he wants to do anyway. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  And if he is there, and that upset about it, a piece of paper isn't going to protect homosexuals either.


----------



## bignick (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> From their church or whatever. Heck they can get marriage whatever way they want. The government can give them the civil unions, whether straight or gay. That way anyone can use the term "marriage" anyway they like.



So then what's the point of changing the word "marriage" to "civil union" in the first place?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

[FONT=arial,helvetica]*"*_*Those things they say about gays* - What the accusations are based on and what reality is"  _An off-site essay by Richard Summerbell

This was an interesting read. 


=====



[/FONT]


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

What Gays can't have in the US:

=====
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

 [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The list below was compiled for a couple living in the United States. However, similar provisions exist in many other countries.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/FONT]​ [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: [/FONT]           

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint parenting; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint adoption; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological  parents); [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where  one partner is too ill to be competent; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child  support; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]immigration and residency for partners from other countries; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies  or leaves the house or apartment; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;           [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one  partner who is a co-owner of the home; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint  filing of tax returns; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint filing of customs claims when traveling; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be  cremated or not and where to bury him or her; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]crime victims' recovery benefits; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]loss of consortium tort benefits; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]domestic violence protection orders; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; [/FONT]   
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]and more.... [/FONT]
 [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.[/FONT]


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

There is a ton of information on the rights, terms, and laws here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm


Here is a list of the POLICIES OF 46 CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS ON HOMOSEXUALITY
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm


Excerpts:


*The Alliance of Baptists*
* Supports equality in marriage for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples throughout the U.S.
* Opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment which would restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples.

===

*THE WORLDWIDE ANGLICAN COMMUNION*
* The right to be considered for ordination as priests and consecrated as bishops using the same criteria as for heterosexuals.
* The right to have their same-sex committed relationships recognized by a religious ritual similar to marriage.
* Does NOT currently allow Actual marriage in the church.

====

*The Episcopal Church, USA*
Two sexually related topics are currently placing extreme stress on the Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion:
* Whether qualified gays and lesbians in committed relationships should be eligible for ordination as priests and consecration as bishops, and
* Whether a church ritual recognizing and blessing committed same-sex unions should be available.

As of 2004-JUN, the answers to both questions appear to be a qualified "yes:"
* Delegates to the 2003 General Convention confirmed the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. He is in a long term, committed relationship with another man.
* Delegates to the same convention overwhelmingly approved a compromise resolution which, in effect, has introduced a local option into the church: It recognized that some priests had already been performing blessings of gay and lesbian couples in some dioceses in the U.S.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

*History of Marriage:*

Whay people were NOT allowed to marry:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm

Changes in Marriage: Past, Present and Future
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar2.htm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Marriage, Smarriage.  blah blah blah.  Bottom line, people want it, because someone told them they couldn't have it.  Now it's a contest to see who can come up with the most creative justifications for it.

Whatever....they want civil unions, let them have civil unions.  Then, will everyone please stop whinning?

I swear, everything in the 21st Century has become a civil rights issue.  I have a friend who's the superintendant of a local prison, and he got sued in federal court because, get this, the inmate swore his constitutional rights were being violated because the cafeteria only provided creamy peanut butter, and he prefers crunchy.......errrrr......


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

BTW: The links I just posted above include a couple tons of references properly listed college style. (Never could get the hang of that myself) 

A few pages are a little out of date...they still list Canada as only partially allowing same sex marriages.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Next issue....inter-species civil unions....it's only fair.  Not saying my dog wants to marry the neighbors cat, but it should be his right, right?  This all reminds me of Monty Python's: Life of Brian, where they're all sitting in the arena

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian



> [Revolutionaries try to formulate their platform.]
> 
> Reg: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man &#8212;
> Stan: Or woman.
> ...



http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian

Oh, Monty Python is such wonderful social satire.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

We already allow Republicans to marry Democrats.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> We already allow Republicans to marry Democrats.


 That's a crime against nature in itself.


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> So then what's the point of changing the word "marriage" to "civil union" in the first place?


 
  I think you are misunderstanding me. I am saying we should take the word marriage from government unions. Let the people decide what they want to do with the word. It seems the government using the term marriage is causing a lot conflict.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> *History of Marriage:*
> 
> Whay people were NOT allowed to marry:
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm
> ...


 
   I imagine the ancient Egyptians letting gays to marry, but am still extremely skeptical about [FONT=&quot]Roman Catholic Church[/FONT] letting same-sex couples get married. How can this be when homosexuality at that time was considered a "sin" that is punishable by death? After the Knights Templar lost their prestige they were accused of many crimes that they did not do in order to eliminate them. One of the many crimes was homosexuality and many were put to death for it. You will find many verses in the Bible that condemn "sodomy", so unless the catholic priest was from our times I can't imagine how he wouldn't hate homosexuals more than anything else. The Bible does teach this.

Anyways even if we were to give same-sex marriage couples rights then we would have to give those men with 10 wives economic benefits too and to my knowledge this does no exist.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I really don't care what offends the tiny minority. Every little thing in life does not need to be fair to every person. The stated argument about why we need civil unions is things like insurance, partner rights in making decisions in time of illness and death, and contracts. If that's all just a ruse, admit it. However, if that's the stated purpose, then why argue the little point of what to call it. I find the whole idea of semantics asinine in the extreme.



I agree that argueing over something as little as a word doesn't make much sense but as you can see many people consider it an issue.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I think you are misunderstanding me. I am saying we should take the word marriage from government unions. Let the people decide what they want to do with the word. It seems the government using the term marriage is causing a lot conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Just because a minority of people have decided lately that they want to expand the definition of a word to suit them, doesn't mean that we have to indulge every whim they have.  If they want civil protections in their self-contained civil unions, that IS fair.  

However, that doesn't mean we have change the definition of words in the language to suit their sense of 'fair'.

I resent the attempt to control the language.  Until recently, this was the only definition of the word

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/marriage

"1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" 

They've already added part two

"2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage "

I will almost assure you that, in the very near future, we will see a definition that eliminates definition one and two and replaces it with a generic definition such as 'the state of being united to a person in a concensual and contractual relationship recognized by law'.

I don't mind the legal protections, it's the attempt to control how we think through manipulation of the language I resent as a rational human being.  I get that feeling I always get when i'm being sold a bill of goods under false pretenses.

Ultimately, however, like abortion, this issue really doesn't get me all that fired up.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> How about we call two people who are male and female and get married 'married'.  If they are homosexual, we'll call it a 'civil union' and grant the same rights as married people?  They can even call themselves married, but on the certificate it'll say 'civil union certificate'?
> 
> Bottom line is, though, WHO CARES?!



I care. Separate but equal was thrown out of the courts a LONG time ago in America.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane,
  Read through all the references.

The "Roman Catholic Church" is only 1 denomination, out of several hundred Christian denominations, and a couple thousand faiths. The more closed minded I find some of these sects, the more I thank my Gods I'm not a member of their 'club'.

As to the "Men with 10 wives", that is legal, just not in the US. Look up the real definition, guidelines, responsibilities, etc of the idea of "Harem" sometime...not the Hollywood version of sex slaves in silk pants.

The argument of "Well, if we give it to them well have to give it to" --insert something stupid like animals, inanimate objects, or small furry critters from Rigel 5-- is to be rather blunt, asinine.

We are not talking about puppies, or monkeys or rocks, or small townships in Lincolnshire.  We are talking about people.

Seems that it's easier to look at them as somehow 'defective' or 'sinning' or 'less than human'. Thats the pity. They should have the same rights under the same terms. Period.

===

Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, shared a personal story that she believes illustrates the prejudice that a gay person cannot love as truly or as deeply as a heterosexual.

The Portland, Oregon, woman said an employee who was grieving over the death of her husband asked Thorpe, "Do your people feel sad when your person dies?"

"It tells it all," Thorpe said. "I said, 'you saw me as a little less human and for me to realize it breaks my heart.'"


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> I care. Separate but equal was thrown out of the courts a LONG time ago in America.


 That's a bit of a stretch there, partner.  Seperate but equal referred to black and white children in schools.  You need to actually educate yourself on the meanings of the phrases you throw around so carelessly.  'Seperate but equal' is just a catch phrase, it is not a term of law.  The comparison of segregation to the current question exist only in a rich fantasy world.

I still maintain it's a contrived non-issue.  It's every bit as contrived as the 'Effort to save christmas'.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Marriage, Smarriage.  blah blah blah.  Bottom line, people want it, because someone told them they couldn't have it.  Now it's a contest to see who can come up with the most creative justifications for it.
> 
> Whatever....they want civil unions, let them have civil unions.  Then, will everyone please stop whinning?
> 
> I swear, everything in the 21st Century has become a civil rights issue.  I have a friend who's the superintendant of a local prison, and he got sued in federal court because, get this, the inmate swore his constitutional rights were being violated because the cafeteria only provided creamy peanut butter, and he prefers crunchy.......errrrr......



Excuse my french but you have no ********** idea of what you are talking about. I am not one to wish ill on others, but I truly wish you have to go through one tenth of what my partner and I had to go through (sickness, hospital visitation problems, immigration problems, etc.) so you could UNDERSTAND why this can actually be a matter of life and death for many of us. By the way: civil unions at the state level would not solve any problems. There are more than 1100 plus FEDERAL rights that can only be grnated to us via federal legislation. 

And no, we don't want marriage becuase it has been denied to us. We want marriage because, as all other human beings around us, we think we have the right to live a decent life in peace and tranquility with the person we love.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's a bit of a stretch there, partner.  Seperate but equal referred to black and white children in schools.  You need to actually educate yourself on the meanings of the phrases you throw around so carelessly.  'Seperate but equal' is just a catch phrase, it is not a term of law.  The comparison of segregation to the current question exist only in a rich fantasy world.
> 
> I still maintain it's a contrived non-issue.  It's every bit as contrived as the 'Effort to save christmas'.



Educate myself? Fortunately, I have worked very hard to educate myself; and no, thank you very much, I will not accept lessons in democracy and equality from a bigot like yourself. Do not, I repeat, *DO NOT* dare compare my union again to that of a human with a dog or any other animal. If that's all your *shameless sense of humor* allows for, really, why bother? Your supreme intelligence blinds me. And *YOU *dare insult me and teach me a lesson? HA! I'd rather take them from a bonobo monkey. At least the have a grain of sensitivity in them, unlike some of my fellow human beings.

having three more fountains built in my neighborhood does not ease the pain of seeing white kids drink from their golden fountain. If you are "kind" enough to "give us" what "we want," then why ar eyou so afraid of sharing? 

I have a theory: you are scared that we can actually do it SO much better than you.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Excuse my french but you have no ********** idea of what you are talking about. I am not one to wish ill on others, but I truly wish you have to go through one tenth of what my partner and I had to go through (sickness, hospital visitation problems, immigration problems, etc.) so you could UNDERSTAND why this can actually be a matter of life and death for many of us. By the way: civil unions at the state level would not solve any problems. There are more than 1100 plus FEDERAL rights that can only be grnated to us via federal legislation.
> 
> And no, we don't want marriage becuase it has been denied to us. We want marriage because, as all other human beings around us, we think we have the right to live a decent life in peace and tranquility with the person we love.


 Maybe you weren't paying, at no point did I oppose denying you any federal rights.  I did say calling it marriage is irrelavent.  

Before you get reactionary, maybe you should actually read the posts of those you decide to attack.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Educate myself? Fortunately, I have worked very hard to educate myself; and no, thank you very much, I will not accept lessons in democracy and equality from a bigot like yourself. Do not, I repeat, *DO NOT* dare compare my union again to that of a human with a dog or any other animal. If that's all your *shameless sense of humor* allows for, really, why bother? Your supreme intelligence blinds me. And *YOU *want to teach me a lesson in justice and dignity for all? HA! I'd rather take them from a bonobo monkey.


 I see that ad hominem attacks are your modus operandi at the moment.  I guess it's simpler to call me a bigot and then congratulate yourself on your superiority, huh?  

At any rate, when I say that maybe you should educate yourself on the terms you're throwing around, I directly reference you  making the statement that 'seperate but equal' had anything to do with this situation, was really a careless turn of phrase.  That misunderstands what the courts said in that case, and it has nothing to do with the current question.

The courts decided seperate but equal schools for black and white children was not an acceptable situation.  What that has to do with your argument, I don't know.  Perhaps you're just used to being able to spout whatever slogan comes to mind unchallenged, but i'm merely calling you on it.  Angry indignation does not an argument make.   Perhaps i'm picky, but I prefer precision in debate.  

Also, in case, in your reactionary zeal, you missed the nuance of my 'cat/dog' reference, it was not a comparison of homosexual unions to animals, but an attack on the idea that simply because someone decides it is their right to do something, it automatically is.  Of course, subtle nuance is lost on the angry.  Some people are a little to determined to be offended.  What ends up happening is that they stop listening to the actual message, and start only listening for the catch phrases that trigger their anger.  

Now, for the final time, i've already voiced my concession that homosexuals in long term relationships deserve the same federal and state protections granted heterosexual married couples.  I disagree that the term 'marriage' is all that important to it, and that forms the bulk of my argument.  I'm slightly annoyed that we've placed that much stock in calling it 'marriage' and argue that the only reason to call it marriage, is because someone said someone else couldn't.  What you've listed is a number of reasons to create 'civil unions'.  I did not see ONE argument that claimed it made any difference if it was called marriage or not.   

If you can't be tolerant of different views, how can you expect others to be tolerant of yours?

I do appreciate your ability to remain civil, however.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

There is a very typical argument I hear when it comes to this (mind you, only in the US: people in other parts of the world never seem to bother so much and they are willing to share the term "marriage" with us): gays and lesbians can already marry... only people of the opposite sex. Last time I checked, the US constitution talked about the right to be happy bla bla bla. But I see Americans (including your ignoramus president) seem to think the constitution is the equivalent of, excuse me, toilet paper. I am glad I am not an American who has to endure the vision of my ignorant fellow citizens trashing it in the name of some religious work of fiction written thousands of years ago. 

Oh, please: be offended. At least you know how we feel when you compare us to dogs.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> There is a very typical argument I hear when it comes to this (mind you, only in the US: people in other parts of the world never seem to bother so much and they are willing to share the term "marriage" with us): gays and lesbians can already marry... only people of the opposite sex. Last time I checked, the US constitution talked about the right to be happy bla bla bla. But I see Americans (including your ignoramus president) seem to think the constitution is the equivalent of, excuse me, toilet paper. I am glad I am not an American who has to endure the vision of my ignorant fellow citizens trashing it in the name of some religious work of fiction written thousands of years ago.
> 
> Oh, please: be offended. At least you know how we feel when you compare us to dogs.


Nothing you say will offend me, and since you assumed a comparison where none existed, you've offended yourself.  

By the way, you may be referring to the "Pursuit of Happiness" which is nowhere found in the US Constition.  This is what I mean by precision.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I see that ad hominem attacks are your modus operandi at the moment.  I guess it's simpler to call me a bigot and then congratulate yourself on your superiority, huh?
> 
> At any rate, when I say that maybe you should educate yourself on the terms you're throwing around, I directly reference you  making the statement about 'seperate but equal' being denied by the courts as really being a careless turn of phrase.  That misunderstands what the courts said in that case, and it has nothing to do with the current question.
> 
> ...



Your comparison with humans and dogs was insulting, period. Regardless of intent. Us gays and lesbians are TIRED of such comparisons being thrown around for "comparative" purposes. As for slogans, etc. etc.: I am a Ph.D. candidate (and I say this not to brag, but to counter your ridiculous accusations of me not being educated on certain matters); I KNOW the difference, believe me, between the bumpersitcker ideology that permeates American culture and cogent, serious, rational arguments. 

The truth is, the government of the United States and its people can choose to perpetuate discrimination and oppression against thei fellow gay and lesbian citizens. Really, you can. I could not care less, as I do have a country that recognizes my full rights, and protects me and the person I love. But please, do not pretend to teach lessons to anyone when the truth is, perhaps you are the ones who should be learning from us. 

The separate but equal argument was used in regards to whites and blacks, true; but the judicial and most importantly the ethical implications of the argument stand for any other two groups of people (citizens) where one group is being denied the full protection of the law (read the 14th amendment, please) which includes enjoying the same privileges with the same name.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's not in the US Constitution.



Sorry I had meant to say the Declaration of Independence.

Oh by the way: happiness is not in the Constitution... but neither is God.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

My ability to remain civil is highly dependent on your ability to not throw around degrading and demeaning references when referring to me as a lesbian woman and my relationship. Or is civility only applicable to me?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Sorry I had meant to say the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Oh by the way: happiness is not in the Constitution... but neither is God.


 All irrelavent.  You are making an assumption about my views, religious and otherwise, not supported by any facts.  Again, it's all designed based on a prejudice, that being that anyone who disagrees with you must be some sort of religious zealot.  I'm neither religious or a zealot.




			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Your comparison with humans and dogs was insulting, period.



The analogy was not a comparsion of dogs to humans, but an attack on the idea that something is always a right, just because someone or thing wants to pursue it.  It's a line of thought taken to the absurd.  Anyone who believes it was a comparison of dogs to humans is a bit shallow in their interpretation.

Again, as you are assuming an insult where none was meant, your offense is entirely self-imposed.  Your anger is,therefore, irrelavent to me.



			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Regardless of intent. Us gays and lesbians are TIRED of such comparisons being thrown around for "comparative" purposes. As for slogans, etc. etc.: I am a Ph.D. candidate (and I say this not to brag, but to counter your ridiculous accusations of me not being educated on certain matters); I KNOW the difference, believe me, between the bumpersitcker ideology that permeates American culture and cogent, serious, rational arguments.


 I'm not going to debate your education, as it is beyond the realm of this forum.  I have debated the inaccuracy of your statements.  



			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> The truth is, the government of the United States and its people can choose to perpetuate discrimination and oppression against thei fellow gay and lesbian citizens. Really, you can. I could not care less, as I do have a country that recognizes my full rights, and protects me and the person I love. But please, do not pretend to teach lessons to anyone when the truth is, perhaps you are the ones who should be learning from us.


 The only lessons i'm giving is on the accuracy of definitions and terms being used.  As for life lessons, you're more than capable of learning those on your own.



			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> The separate but equal argument was used in regards to whites and blacks, true; but the judicial and most importantly the ethical implications of the argument stand for any other two groups of people (citizens) where one group is being denied the full protection of the law (read the 14th amendment, please) which includes enjoying the same privileges with the same name.



I've read the 14th amendment, why don't you quote the section that grants every citizen the right to marriage.  



This is typical of this kind of debate.  An open dialogue of ideas ends up becoming an angry tirade.  

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Kane,
> Read through all the references.
> 
> The "Roman Catholic Church" is only 1 denomination, out of several hundred Christian denominations, and a couple thousand faiths. The more closed minded I find some of these sects, the more I thank my Gods I'm not a member of their 'club'.
> ...



Well you know the Greeks were known for the homosexuality but there was no same-sex marriage in Greek culture.

I'll look at the references more but it still doesn't make much sense how any Abrahmic faith can accept homosexuality. These must be very liberal faiths of old and if they were we all know the hostile church would have put an end and kill them like they did pagans. It would defy logic if this type of thing was permited by the Christian religion, but I'll read more into the issue. Most things I have read about marriage suggest otherwise.



			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Excuse my french but you have no ********** idea of what you are talking about. I am not one to wish ill on others, but I truly wish you have to go through one tenth of what my partner and I had to go through (sickness, hospital visitation problems, immigration problems, etc.) so you could UNDERSTAND why this can actually be a matter of life and death for many of us. By the way: civil unions at the state level would not solve any problems. There are more than 1100 plus FEDERAL rights that can only be grnated to us via federal legislation.
> 
> And no, we don't want marriage becuase it has been denied to us. We want marriage because, as all other human beings around us, we think we have the right to live a decent life in peace and tranquility with the person we love.


 
 Sounds to me you just want the economic rights. That is okay. So you wouldn't mind the "name" marriage would you? Having the word certianly didn't give you the suffering you went, being denied economic rights straight couples had did. I agree you and your partner deserve those rights, isn't that all we need? Let us say we were to have a seperate but equal system (which we do not have), would be happy then? Or how about my solution that the word marriage isn't used by the government. Would you be happy then or would you need the name from the government to give you satisfaction?


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Sounds to me you just want the economic rights. That is okay. So you wouldn't mind the "name" marriage would you? Having the word certianly didn't give you the suffering you went, being denied economic rights straight couples had did. I agree you and your partner deserve those rights, isn't that all we need? Let us say we were to have a seperate but equal system (which we do not have), would be happy then? Or how about my solution that the word marriage isn't used by the government. Would you be happy then or would you need the name from the government to give you satisfaction?



Let me ask you this: why is it so difficult for heterosexuals to deny others the right to use the word? Is the word "marriage" so orgasmic that they fear it will lose its orgasmic dimension if they share it? Seriously: I just don't get it. As for what I need, you are quite arrogant in your presumption about what I or my partner "need." Wouldn't you agree that it is up to me and my partner to decide what we need and to work towards satisfying that need? Or do I need your very heterosexual permission and guidance to decide what's good and what's bad for me?

But to answer your question: no, it is not just economic rights. There is an emotional dimension (psychological, if you will) that you will never be able to understand. last friday, as I stood in front of the judge getting married, I felt a sense of dignitiy that you will never be able to understand, no matter how many messages I write on this board. THat feeling remains with me, and neither you nor anyone else will be able to take that away from me.


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Your comparison with humans and dogs was insulting, period. Regardless of intent. Us gays and lesbians are TIRED of such comparisons being thrown around for "comparative" purposes. As for slogans, etc. etc.: I am a Ph.D. candidate (and I say this not to brag, but to counter your ridiculous accusations of me not being educated on certain matters); I KNOW the difference, believe me, between the bumpersitcker ideology that permeates American culture and cogent, serious, rational arguments.
> 
> The truth is, the government of the United States and its people can choose to perpetuate discrimination and oppression against thei fellow gay and lesbian citizens. Really, you can. I could not care less, as I do have a country that recognizes my full rights, and protects me and the person I love. But please, do not pretend to teach lessons to anyone when the truth is, perhaps you are the ones who should be learning from us.
> 
> The separate but equal argument was used in regards to whites and blacks, true; but the judicial and most importantly the ethical implications of the argument stand for any other two groups of people (citizens) where one group is being denied the full protection of the law (read the 14th amendment, please) which includes enjoying the same privileges with the same name.



You have no idea how it is to live in a country that discriminated against homosexuals. Don't you dare for one second suggest the United States is the great evil towards homosexuals. I dare you to go to India, Iran, or most other non-western countries and see whether you can even get away with being homosexual. Many of the world would such horrible acts to homosexuals that you couldn't even imagine. Don't you dare accuse the US government of discriminating against homosexuals. Denying the right to marry someone of your same gender is nothing compared to hanging you by a rope for being homosexual. That is what many countries do. Its barbaric, its inhumane, yes it is evil. But comparing US to a nation that actually discriminates against gays is pretty low IMHO.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> You have no idea how it is to live in a country that discriminated against homosexuals. Don't you dare for one second suggest the United States is the great evil towards homosexuals. I dare you to go to India, Iran, or most other non-western countries and see whether you can even get away with being homosexual. Many of the world would such horrible acts to homosexuals that you couldn't even imagine. Don't you dare accuse the US government of discriminating against homosexuals. Denying the right to marry someone of your same gender is nothing compared to hanging you by a rope for being homosexual. That is what many countries do. Its barbaric, its inhumane, yes it is evil. But comparing US to a nation that actually discriminates against gays is pretty low IMHO.



Excuse me, but again you are way off. It so happens that *my partner lived for 10 years of her life in Saudi Arabia* (a fact that is familiar to some members here in MT from previous discussions). I lived for a couple of years in Jordan and Tunisia, and fyi, I spent nine years in the US. So do not presuppose things about which you know nothing. And by the way: *the fact that those countries treat homosexuals so terribly does not justify US policies and regulations towards its gay and lesbian citizens*.

Are you denying that the US government discriminates against homosexuals??? Then howcome my partner, a US citizen, had to migrate to Europe in order to be together with me, her partner of three years, because I reached a point where I could  not obtain legal residence as her partner in the US? Or because we could not afford healthcare, having to purchase two very expensive and separate healthcare plans???? How do you dare?  Are you telling me that I did not suffer injustices in your glorious nation???? THat I jsut made it all up? That I merely imagined the suffering that was derived from legislation in all areas from healthcare to immigration to what not??? How arrogant can you be??? once again: really, you can keep the US to yourself. The tragedy is, instead of building an open and embracing society, you have built a prison from which many people now want to escape. How sad. As I said before, the US is going in the opposite direction of other civilized nations, and is looking more and more like, let's say, Zimbabwe and Nigeria than Canada or Sweden. And you are fine with that???


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Let me ask you this: why is it so difficult for heterosexuals to deny others the right to use the word? Is the word "marriage" so orgasmic that they fear it will lose its orgasmic dimension if they share it? Seriously: I just don't get it. As for what I need, you are quite arrogant in your presumption about what I or my partner "need." Wouldn't you agree that it is up to me and my partner to decide what we need and to work towards satisfying that need? Or do I need your very heterosexual permission and guidance to decide what's good and what's bad for me?



Again you want things your way. Can you not see it? My solution states that the government does not have to take a stance on the issue. Why are you so oppose to this? You want the economic rights a straight couple wants, so in my solution the government gives you it. BUT, by calling it a civil union (for straights and gays) we won't run into this problem.

Don't you understand? When you say marriage is your way you are forcing your view upon others. Its no different if straight couple stated that homosexuals cannot get married for their own reasons. You want to call your union marriage? Fine, go right ahead. A straight couple wants to call their union marriage? Fine go right ahead. You think homosexual couples is the only form of marriage and vice verse, fine believe what you want. With the government calling it merely civil unions, you can do whatever you want with the union. You can call it whatever you want. You have the same economic rights and thats it.

How can anything be anymore neutral or fair as this?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Excuse me, but again you are way off. It so happens that *my partner lived for 10 years of hear life in Saudi Arabia*; I lived for a couple of years in Jordan, and fyi, I spent nine years in the US. So do not presuppose things about which you know nothing. And by the way: *the fact that those countries treat homosexuals so terribly does not justify US policies and regulations towards its gay and lesbian citizens*.
> 
> Are you denying that the US government discriminates against homosexuals??? Then howcome my partner, a US citizen, had to migrate to Europe in order to be together with me, her partner of three years, because I reached a point where I could not obtain legal residence as her partner in the US? Or because we could not afford healthcare, having to purchase two very expensive and separate healthcare plans???? How do you dare? Are you telling me that I did not suffer injustices in your glorious nation???? THat I jsut made it all up? That I merely imagined the suffering that was derived from legislation in all areas from healthcare to immigration to what not??? How arrogant can you be??? once again: really, you can keep the US to yourself. The tragedy is, instead of building an open and embracing society, you have built a prison from which many people now want to escape. How sad.


 Mmm-kay.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Again you want things your way. Can you not see it? My solution states that the government does not have to take a stance on the issue. Why are you so oppose to this? You want the economic rights a straight couple wants, so in my solution the government gives you it. BUT, by calling it a civil union (for straights and gays) we won't run into this problem.
> 
> Don't you understand? When you say marriage is your way you are forcing your view upon others. Its no different if straight couple stated that homosexuals cannot get married for their own reasons. You want to call your union marriage? Fine, go right ahead. A straight couple wants to call their union marriage? Fine go right ahead. You think homosexual couples is the only form of marriage and vice verse, fine believe what you want. With the government calling it merely civil unions, you can do whatever you want with the union. You can call it whatever you want. You have the same economic rights and thats it.
> 
> How can anything be anymore neutral or fair as this?


 You're looking for a compromise with an individual where none can exist at the moment.  Anger clowds any attempt at dialogue.  It's clear that if you disagree on even the slightest point, you are a 'bigot', 'ignorant' and evil.  Where's the middle ground there?


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Excuse me, but again you are way off. It so happens that *my partner lived for 10 years of hear life in Saudi Arabia*; I lived for a couple of years in Jordan, and fyi, I spent nine years in the US. So do not presuppose things about which you know nothing. And by the way: *the fact that those countries treat homosexuals so terribly does not justify US policies and regulations towards its gay and lesbian citizens*.
> 
> Are you denying that the US government discriminates against homosexuals??? Then howcome my partner, a US citizen, had to migrate to Europe in order to be together with me, her partner of three years, because I reached a point where I could not obtain legal residence as her partner in the US? Or because we could not afford healthcare, having to purchase two very expensive and separate healthcare plans???? How do you dare? Are you telling me that I did not suffer injustices in your glorious nation???? THat I jsut made it all up? That I merely imagined the suffering that was derived from legislation in all areas from healthcare to immigration to what not??? How arrogant can you be???



Come again? How do you know that all has to do with you being gay? First of all you need to define what you are angry about. Did the US;

1. Deny you and your partner homosexual unions the economic rights that straight couples get.

2. Or something else???????

If the the option is number 2 then you should have gotten yourself a good lawyer because it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of race or sexual orientation. If a health insurance company denies you rights because you are gay this is illegal.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Come again? How do you know that all has to do with you being gay? First of all you need to define what you are angry about. Did the US;
> 
> 1. Deny you and your partner homosexual unions the economic rights that straight couples get.
> 
> ...



No, *it is not illegal in the UNited States to discriminate someone on the basis of sexual orientation. * There are numerous states where you can actually be fired because of your sexual orientation and there is no legislation put in place to protect you. Please show me the piece of federal legislation that says it is. Please, because I would be delighted. We are not the only binational couple who confronted such problems. Sexual orientation is NOT a federally protected category. Please inform yourself before speaking. If it was, I could have challenged all the denials I faced in a court of law; unfortunately, it isn't, so I have no grounds to complain. Same goes for health insurance. THAT is the kind of country you are living it, sorry to say. I think Bob posted a very good link to the 1100 plus rights we are denied on a federal level; perhaps you missed that post??? Sexual orientation protection clauses have been enacted at the state and city or county level in some parts of the US and, in some cases, these measures have been subject to challenge on the part of conservative groups. But there is no federal protection. Period. 

Here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You're looking for a compromise with an individual where none can exist at the moment. Anger clowds any attempt at dialogue. It's clear that if you disagree on even the slightest point, you are a 'bigot', 'ignorant' and evil. Where's the middle ground there?



Your probably right as ave turuta seems too pissed off at the world to see where others are coming from.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Your probably right as ave turuta seems too pissed off at the world to see where others are coming from.



do you see where _*I*_ am coming from? or is it too much of a stretch of your imagination to put yourself in your sister's shoes for just ten minutes? Why is it that us gays and lesbians ought to be understanding, compassionate, peaceful, quiet, and tolerant of intolerance, while others can get away with demeaning us in every possible way? I wonder.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Your probably right as ave turuta seems too pissed off at the world to see where others are coming from.


 Just remember, if you're not 'PC' in every letter of your speech, someone will get offended and accuse you of being a 'bigot'.  Ironic how they reserve the right to angry, vitriolic dialogue for themselves, though.

It's nothing but an attempt to control debate through sheer force of emotion.  Stifle any disagreement by shouting it down...and if someone still decides to disagree, then use one of the politically approved pejoratives toward them, like 'bigot' or 'fascist', or one of the other approved labels.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Just remember, if you're not 'PC' in every letter of your speech, someone will get offended and accuse you of being a 'bigot'.  Ironic how they reserve the right to angry, vitriolic dialogue for themselves, though.
> 
> It's nothing but an attempt to control debate through sheer force of emotion.  Stifle any disagreement by shouting it down.



Oh emotion. Yes. Just like when Kane told me that hey! why didn't I get a good lawyer because sexual protection is a protected clause in the US???? very funny. i almost fell of my chair. and there i was, suffering unnecesarily because the US is such a magnanimous nation that it granted me all rights. my goodness, how could i have been so stuuuuuuuuupid. 

as you can see, i am not a pc person myself. that doesn't mean that i have to put up with ridiculously degrading or outright false arguments.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Oh emotion. Yes. Just like when Kane told me that hey! why didn't I get a good lawyer because sexual protection is a protected clause in the US???? very funny. i almost fell of my chair. and there i was, suffering unnecesarily because the US is such a magnanimous nation that it granted me all rights. my goodness, how could i have been so stuuuuuuuuupid.
> 
> as you can see, i am not a pc person myself. that doesn't mean that i have to put up with ridiculously degrading or outright false arguments.


 You're putting up with degrading false arguments or dispensing degrading false arguments?  Because most of the angry vitriole seems to be eminating from your posts.  Nobody has called you 'stupid' or has made any attempt to insult you personally.  I'm beginning to suspect a martyr complex at work here.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Here is a state by state map of states with some level of anti-discrimination laws: 

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/states/antidiscrimi-map

Including counties, here: 

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=217


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> No, *it is not illegal in the UNited States to discriminate someone on the basis of sexual orientation. * There are numerous states where you can actually be fired because of your sexual orientation and there is no legislation put in place to protect you. Please show me the piece of federal legislation that says it is. Please, because I would be delighted. We are not the only binational couple who confronted such problems. Sexual orientation is NOT a federally protected category. Please inform yourself before speaking. If it was, I could have challenged all the denials I faced in a court of law; unfortunately, it isn't, so I have no grounds to complain. Same goes for health insurance. THAT is the kind of country you are living it, sorry to say. I think Bob posted a very good link to the 1100 plus rights we are denied on a federal level; perhaps you missed that post???
> 
> Here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm



You know we do live in a democracy. If there is something you don't like about the US protest and speak against it. Do you know that a homeless man started the whole issue on the 10 comandments being removed from public buildings? You may not think you can make a difference but you can. Instead of complaining about how much the world sucks do something about it. I agree with you that businesses should not discrinimate against someone based on whatever they believe and this right should be protected. Secondly if it is legal in the state you live in you should have moved to a state where it is illegal to discriminate against gays.

Anyways no matter how you look at it I really doubt every single health insurance provider denyed you. In this capitilistic nation that we live in no one is going to just deny you the coverage because your gay unless some fundie is running the company. Most people would want to make a buck regardless of what the person believes or is attracted too. You sure you shopped around enough? I'm curious, what companies denyed you? I will write a letter to them for further info and perhaps this can improve conditions here.

I know that most people I come in contact with do not care less what your sexual orientation is as long as you get along. Some do yes, but this ain't a majority.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You're putting up with degrading false arguments or dispensing degrading false arguments?  Because most of the angry vitriole seems to be eminating from your posts.  Nobody has called you 'stupid' or has made any attempt to insult you personally.  I'm beginning to suspect a martyr complex at work here.



[Singing]"Beating up a dead horse.... laralaralaaaaaaaa"[END SONG]

Let's say you have insulted me collectively, then? 

Really, when I see my union compared to that of human and dog, I feel an unaexplainable inner joy. Seriously. 

Salud, camarada


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

Here in California it is illegal, so why couldn't you just move to California? In MA gays have almost all rights. Why couldn't you move there? Always remember that each state or province in a large federal republic is in some ways a different country. You will find a very different atitude towards gays in MA than in TX .


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> [Singing]"Beating up a dead horse.... laralaralaaaaaaaa"[END SONG]
> 
> Let's say you have insulted me collectively, then?
> 
> ...


 Again, you've insulted yourself by applying an analogy TOO you, that did not having anything to do WITH you.  That says more about your desire to be insulted at every opportunity, than anything I actually said.  Again, more indicative of a martyr complex.



Bless you to, my friend.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> You know we do live in a democracy. If there is something you don't like about the US protest and speak against it. Do you know that a homeless man started the whole issue on the 10 comandments being removed from public buildings? You may not think you can make a difference but you can. Instead of complaining about how much the world sucks do something about it. I agree with you that businesses should not discrinimate against someone based on whatever they believe and this right should be protected. Secondly if it is legal in the state you live in you should have moved to a state where it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Anyways no matter how you look at it I really doubt every single health insurance provider denyed you. In this capitilistic nation that we live in no one is going to just deny you the coverage because your gay unless some fundie is running the company. Most people would want to make a buck regardless of what the person believes or is attracted too. You sure you shopped around enough? I'm curious, what companies denyed you? I will write a letter to them for further info and perhaps this can improve conditions here.
> 
> I know that most people I come in contact with do not care less what your sexual orientation is as long as you get along. Some do yes, but this ain't a majority.



Oh sure. I was a couch potato, as you can see here: I did nothing to improve my sitation, wrote no letters, and met with no individuals to improve my lot. Everything that happened was my fault. Mea culpa. Of course! About moving: again, you assume things my friend... I used to live in Virginia, where I had signed powers of attorney for healthcare with my partner. In the summer of 2004, the Virginia Assembly passed the Marriage Affirmation Act (read here: http://www.equalityvirginia.org/site/pp.asp?c=dfIIITMIG&b=181005) Since my partner had a serious health problem back them that put her at risk of being hospitalized anytime and her parents could deny me visitation rights and other life and death decisions as we had agreed on our power of attorney (now void per the new law), we were afraid our powers of attorney would not be recognized, and the law put us at grave risk. Consequently, we packed our things and moved to Montgomery County in *Maryland*, which has a friendlier legislation, on August 2004. We also thought of getting married in Canada and fight in the US courts for recognition of our rights, but a very complex immigration issue related to the federal govenrment not recognizing same-sex marriage would have made this impossible; and, according to my immigration advisor at work, I would have likely been striped of my visa in the US (too long to explain here, but basically it would have put us in a catch-22 situation). 

But seriously: do you think people should live like this, packing their stuff up when a bunch of bigots decide to deny them rights??? That's why when Spain passed the new legislation we decided to move here. We were tired of living in fear and insecurity, derived from the fact that my partner's parents (who do not speak to her nor have they cared for her in the past three something years) could do everything, from barring me from her bedside (and you bet they would!) to anything they would have pleased because the law protected them, instead of us two.

It's funny, I can see why you think I am bitchy and moody and angry. Actually, every since we arrived in Spain I had forgotten about these feelings of anger. I am a different person here (in Spain): certainly more relaxed, I laugh more, and so is my partner, even though she doesn't speak the language yet. We often talk about it, how realxed we are (even though we are living on half the salary we were making in the US), and it's not just the new atmosphere: in our case, it is the fact that now I don't fear her falling ill and hving her parents come and see how the police bars me from a hospital bed, because now the law recognizes me as her partner. I don't know: it's just so different. I guess I can't explain it with words.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Oh sure. I was a couch potato, as you can see here: I did nothing to improve my sitation, wrote no letters, and met with no individuals to improve my lot. Everything that happened was my fault. Mea culpa. Of course! About moving: again, you assume things my friend... I used to live in Virginia, where I had signed powers of attorney for healthcare with my partner. In the summer of 2004, the Virginia Assembly passed the Marriage Affirmation Act (read here: http://www.equalityvirginia.org/site/pp.asp?c=dfIIITMIG&b=181005) Since my partner had a serious health problem back them that put her at risk of being hospitalized anytime and her parents could deny me visitation rights and other life and death decisions as we had agreed on our power of attorney (now void per the new law), we were afraid our powers of attorney would not be recognized, and the law put us at grave risk. Consequently, we packed our things and moved to Maryland, which has a friendlier legislation. But seriously: do you think people should live like this, packing their stuff up when a bunch of bigots decide to deny them rights???


 So are we to assume that the citizens of Virginia are all bigoted, and have no right to legislate their affairs as a democratic society?  So who decides?  Does a minority, who doesn't like the way a society is run, have the right, in turn, to enforce their views on a majority, simply because they disagree with the way things are done?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  

In some cases the answer is an obvious yes, such as with slavery and the civil rights movement in the south.  However, that isn't a blank check that grants anyone who declares themselves a minority automatically receives protected status.  Laws definitely have the right to determine certain behaviors aren't protected.  The question is, however, who decides?  

I guess just asking the question gets me labelled a 'bigot' again, huh?


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Oh sure. I was a couch potato, as you can see here: I did nothing to improve my sitation, wrote no letters, and met with no individuals to improve my lot. Everything that happened was my fault. Mea culpa. Of course! About moving: again, you assume things my friend... I used to live in Virginia, where I had signed powers of attorney for healthcare with my partner. In the summer of 2004, the Virginia Assembly passed the Marriage Affirmation Act (read here: http://www.equalityvirginia.org/site/pp.asp?c=dfIIITMIG&b=181005) Since my partner had a serious health problem back them that put her at risk of being hospitalized anytime and her parents could deny me visitation rights and other life and death decisions as we had agreed on our power of attorney (now void per the new law), we were afraid our powers of attorney would not be recognized, and the law put us at grave risk. Consequently, we packed our things and moved to Maryland, which has a friendlier legislation. But seriously: do you think people should live like this, packing their stuff up when a bunch of bigots decide to deny them rights???



Still, I find it hard to believe that every single health insurance provider denyed you. There are so many companies that I am sure that would have helped you out and are totally fine with gays. The USofA is a very diverse country. Which makes me wonder why didn't move to CA or MA if "everyone" denyed you (which I find it hard to believe). There you would be guaranteed more rights. Remember, we live in a huge federal republic and you can't label everyone within it as bigots that would deny you. In fact the USofA maybe the most diverse of all the federal republics .


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Here in California it is illegal, so why couldn't you just move to California? In MA gays have almost all rights. Why couldn't you move there? Always remember that each state or province in a large federal republic is in some ways a different country. You will find a very different atitude towards gays in MA than in TX .



I told you already we did move. Really, we did. We packed our s****, paid almost $1,000 to the moving company, and moved to another state. But the question is, if the US is a nation of equals, why did we have to do that in the first place??? And once again, the protections offered at the state level mean little to a binational couple, who need the protection of the federal government. Really: have you read the 14th amendment???? Do you really think that the Virginia law respect that??


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Still, I find it hard to believe that every single health insurance provider denyed you. There are so many companies that I am sure that would have helped you out and are totally fine with gays. The USofA is a very diverse country. Which makes me wonder why didn't move to CA or MA if "everyone" denyed you (which I find it hard to believe). There you would be guaranteed more rights. Remember, we live in a huge federal republic and you can't label everyone within it as bigots that would deny you. In fact the USofA maybe the most diverse of all the federal republics .



Because I am a graduate Ph.D. candidate and I had to be where I had to be and I cannot just pack and leave at will, maybe????? and because my stay in the US is conditional on me staying in that program???
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
And still I repeat my question: wjhy would an American citizen or resident have to keep moving from one state or the other for fear of being persecuted, or not protected, under the law?????????? to me it is amazing that you actually suggest this!!!!!!!!! i thought the US was a free country. THe WHOLE of it.


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> I told you already we did move. Really, we did. We packed our s****, paid almost $1,000 to the moving company, and moved to another state. But the question is, if the US is a nation of equals, why did we have to do that in the first place??? And once again, the protections offered at the state level mean little to a binational couple, who need the protection of the federal government.





			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Because I am a graduate Ph.D. candidate and I had to be where I had to be and I cannot just pack and leave at will, maybe????? and because my stay in the US is conditional on me staying in that program???
> Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
> And still I repeat my question: wjhy would an American citizen or resident have to keep moving from one state or the other for fear of being persecuted, or not protected, under the law?????????? to me it is amazing that you actually suggest this!!!!!!!!! i thought the US was a free country. THe WHOLE of it.



We don't live in a perfect nation, but our nation is no where near bad (quite the opposite). There is still a lot to be done. I suggest if you feel so strongly about what you believe in that you start some big organization to create government laws against such acts. Seems to me most homosexual rights activists seem more obbessesed with marriage more than anything else. If I were you I would be more into getting these type of rights secured before getting into changing definations like marriage!

But hey, you moved to a more accepting state and you should be happy about this. It's not the end of the world and I'm sure in the future issues like this will be solved .


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Because I am a graduate Ph.D. candidate and I had to be where I had to be and I cannot just pack and leave at will, maybe????? and because my stay in the US is conditional on me staying in that program???
> Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.


 I think this dead horse has been beaten MORE than enough, i'm through smacking it.

Best of luck in all your endeavors.  Good luck with the Grad work.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So are we to assume that the citizens of Virginia are all bigoted, and have no right to legislate their affairs as a democratic society?  So who decides?  Does a minority, who doesn't like the way a society is run, have the right, in turn, to enforce their views on a majority, simply because they disagree with the way things are done?  Perhaps, perhaps not.
> 
> In some cases the answer is an obvious yes, such as with slavery and the civil rights movement in the south.  However, that isn't a blank check that grants anyone who declares themselves a minority automatically receives protected status.  Laws definitely have the right to determine certain behaviors aren't protected.  The question is, however, who decides?
> 
> I guess just asking the question gets me labelled a 'bigot' again, huh?



Let me turn it around and ask you the same question: why is race any different from sexual orientation? That is, why is it "obvious" in the first case and not in the second? You first have to prove that it is "obvious" for me to start arguing, because if civil rights movement was successful, it was certainly not thanks to the American people, but thanks to the American courts. The legislation was changed, often, against the will of the people for the good of the people (I agree with Bob on this one). But I think we will never agree. Basically following your argument one could also justify the discriminating of millions of Jews and other peoples under the Nazi regime: let me remind you that the racial laws put in place by the III Reich were put in place by a democratically elected government....

Then again, this is not about protecting minorities (something that seems to get lost in the fray of battle): it is about granting equal rights. I do not ask for special rights: I simply ask for the right to live a peaceful and quiet life in the company of the person I love with the protection of the law. The *same *protection that the law offers to my fellow heterosexual Americans. Not more, and not less than that....


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> We don't live in a perfect nation, but our nation is no where near bad (quite the opposite). There is still a lot to be done. I suggest if you feel so strongly about what you believe in that you start some big organization to create government laws against such acts. Seems to me most homosexual rights activists seem more obbessesed with marriage more than anything else. If I were you I would be more into getting these type of rights secured before getting into changing definations like marriage!
> 
> But hey, you moved to a more accepting state and you should be happy about this. It's not the end of the world and I'm sure in the future issues like this will be solved .



Those organizations already exist. The work of those organizations is already being opposed, boycotted, and their petitions being denied by very active organizations who sit on the other end of the spectrum. The US has embarked on a path towards fundamentalism and religiously bigotted policies. If you do not want to see it, fine with me.... seriously. Moving to a more "accepting" state, as you say, did not offer us full protection and did not solve our problems. We did all we could to change things: we failed, and left. Bottomline is: the US is today an unwelcoming nation for many of its own citizens. How sad.


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Those organizations already exist. The work of those organizations is already being opposed, boycotted, and their petitions being denied by very active organizations who sit on the other end of the spectrum. The US has embarked on a path towards fundamentalism and religiously bigotted policies. If you do not want to see it, fine with me.... seriously. Moving to a more "accepting" state, as you say, did not offer us full protection and did not solve our problems. We did all we could to change things: we failed, and left. Bottomline is: the US is today an unwelcoming nation for many of its own citizens. How sad.



That is how it is in all nations. No nation is perfect. Be thankful that you have the right to express how much you dislike the US.

I agree with you that Christianity may have influence over our laws but there are many states where it does not. You can't expect the whole of such a big country to have the same opinion, which is why we live in a federal republic.

Going back to the topic, would you be for the solution I suggested? Remember everyone in the country is equal according to this law, it is just that the government doesn't force people to view what they think is as marriage. Wouldn't you be in favor of such a law as it has absolutley no discrimination in it. By calling all unions civil unions there is no confusion or any discrimination. Would you be willing to come to a   compromiseor do you want it only your way?


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> That is how it is in all nations. No nation is perfect. Be thankful that you have the right to express how much you dislike the US.
> 
> I agree with you that Christianity may have influence over our laws but there are many states where it does not. You can't expect the whole of such a big country to have the same opinion, which is why we live in a federal republic.
> 
> Going back to the topic, would you be for the solution I suggested? Remember everyone in the country is equal according to this law, it is just that the government doesn't force people to view what they think is as marriage. Wouldn't you be in favor of such a law as it has absolutley no discrimination in it. By calling all unions civil unions there is no confusion or any discrimination. Would you be willing to come to a   compromiseor do you want it only your way?



*I am already married*, remember?  What I quite don't understand is why you are willing to take marriage away from heterosexual couples just so you don't have to share it with gays and lesbians. Now, THAT is what I don't understand. 

By the way: do you EVER sleep? 

see? i can be nice too.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> That is how it is in all nations. No nation is perfect. Be thankful that you have the right to express how much you dislike the US.



Once again: the fact that there are many good things in the US does not detract from the fact that there are also many negative things that need to be changed. The problem is, change is right now going in the opposite direction, with more and more restrictions being placed on how gay and lesbian people live our lives, not to speak of other matters not related to LGBT issues. Remember that in the 2004 elections, antimarriage amendments were passed in 11 states. But what many people didn't realize is that in some cases, on top of banning same-sex marriage, they were also banning other forms of consensual agreements (from civil unions to mere contracts or powers of attorney). Here is where I draw the line: under the guise of "protecting marriage," fundamentalists are pushing for a much sinister agenda, i.e. to ban gays and lesbians from leading normal, peaceful lives with their partners of choice because of their religious convictions. People of faith are free to organize their lives as they see fit, but they do not have the right, in the name of a majority, to strip individual citizens of essential rights, such as living with dignity and without fear. The argument that a majority can decide what the rules are because they are the majority has long been proven to be both wrong, and dangerous: we are not talking about majority or minority rights, but about the rights of the individual. As long as there is one person who is discriminated against for whatever reason, then that means there is something wrong with the law. And if changing the law can bring happiness and benefits to that person while not hurting others, then what is the problem? How is me being married detrimental to you?

I know the Spanish and US cases are not comparable. In Spain, LGBT organizations fought for years for a civil unions law. THe Popular Party, then in power (1996-2004) consistently denied on 38 different occasions the passing of civil unions legislation at the national level. By 2004, LGBT organizations were so fed up that the strategy had been changed to full recognition of same-sex marriage. By the time the Spanish parliament approved the change in legislation, the protests of the Popular Party (arguing that they did not oppose same-sex couples, just didn't want to call it "marriage") sounded false, hollow and very hypocritical: they had had 8 years to pass civil unions legislation that WOULD HAVE been acceptable to LGBT groups; they let the opportunity pass, and they got same-sex marriage instead...

As a colorful note, I will just say that the only thing the Parliament did was change the wording of the previous civil code from "husband and wife" to "the spouses." It was just one word!!!! But what a difference it made. Now the judges prnounce everyone "united in matrimony," whether it's heterosexual or homosexual couples...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Let me turn it around and ask you the same question: why is race any different from sexual orientation?


 Let me dissect this question.  The question isn't whether race is different.  The question you are REALLY asking is what the difference is between being allowed to have a document that calls you married and being forced to go to school in substandard conditions because you were born black.  There really is no comparison.  Nobody is suggesting segregating homosexuals, if they were, you'd have an argument.  But as they aren't, you've obviously overstretched in your comparison.  You're engaging in a hyperbolic argument, by attempting to elevate your position to the level of fighting segregation.  Against, it's a false argument.



			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> That is, why is it "obvious" in the first case and not in the second? You first have to prove that it is "obvious" for me to start arguing, because if civil rights movement was successful, it was certainly not thanks to the American people, but thanks to the American courts. The legislation was changed, often, against the will of the people for the good of the people (I agree with Bob on this one). But I think we will never agree. Basically following your argument one could also justify the discriminating of millions of Jews and other peoples under the Nazi regime: let me remind you that the racial laws put in place by the III Reich were put in place by a democratically elected government....


 Again, more hyperbole.  In this case, back-handedly calling anyone you disagree with a 'Nazi'.  Again, however, the presumptuousness of assuming you are a martyr on par with the rounding up and extermination of millions of human beings is extraordinary.  You should be ashamed.  



			
				ava_turuta said:
			
		

> Then again, this is not about protecting minorities (something that seems to get lost in the fray of battle): it is about granting equal rights. I do not ask for special rights: I simply ask for the right to live a peaceful and quiet life in the company of the person I love with the protection of the law. The *same *protection that the law offers to my fellow heterosexual Americans. Not more, and not less than that....


 What it is really about is demanding that society accept you as you want to be accepted.  Protecting your equal access to the same civil services as married heterosexual people is one thing (such as insurance, power of attorney, etc).  All of that was conceeded in this argument before you became a part of it.  

However, that isn't what your entire argument is.  You want everyone you consider a 'bigot' to be forced by law to accept you, and acknowledge you. However, you are angry at even the suggestion that the document you receive say anything but "Marriage License".  You believe you should have the right for the civil document to say "Marriage License" and if anyone disagrees, they are on par with 'Nazis' and those who fought integration. That, the idea that everyone must accept everyone else, part of the problem.  

Again, 'who cares'?  I have no problem with 'civil unions'.  And I technically wouldn't have a problem if you called your self married.  But I have a BIG problem with you thinking it's an entitlement.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

First, *I called no one a Nazi* (Please review my post and prove where i have done so). My example was merely an *illustration *of a previous point you had made, by which you justified the consensus of a majority as valid, even if it resulted in the discrimination of a minority. Carrying that argument to its logical conclusion, I added the following thought: since the racial laws of the III Reich were passed by a democratically elected government, are those laws untouchable? Further, if 98% of a given population decides to oppress, discriminate against, or even exterminate the remaining 2% on the basis of a certain "consensus," how can that be justified in a state where the individual is the repository of basic rights?

Secondly: *you still have not proven to me why race is any different from sexual orientation, or viceversa*. The psychological suffering derived from both types of discrimination is undeniable (save, of course, for people who have no sense of empathy towards the suffering of others). The truth of the matter is, the "marriage" debate aside, that even when it comes to civil unions, 11 states passed legislation (sometimes with voter approval) that bars gay and lesbian individuals from enjoying certain rights. Fine, let's say we call it civil unions: how then would you justify the refusal of many conservatives (sanctioned by referendum in some US states) to deny gays and lesbians even the right to sign a power of attorney or to have their union recognized in any form or shape?

I gave you the Spanish example: *while in power, conservatives refused to recognize civil unions* arguing they were not needed, etc. etc. This would have been acceptable to LGBT groups then. By the time they lost control of parliament, it was too late to tell us they were not against granting us rights, just against calling our unions "marriage." This, and no other, is the strategy of many US conservatives who deny us not only the right to call our unions marriage, but who basically refuse to consider our unions "unions" at all!!! The Virginia Assembly did it, and so did the voters in several states in 2004.

Further, if opponents of same-sex marriage who simultaneously proclaim not to hate gays and to respect us had proposed a civil unions legislation at the federal level *together *with their constitutional amendment to "protect" marriage from us, perhaps I would have believed that they truly care about what happens to their gay and lesbian compatriots. It The truth is that the push towards amending the constitution has not been accompanied by ANY measures that would grant ANY kind of rights to gay and lesbian people. Personally, I think marriage needs to be protected, but not from gays or lesbians: rather it needs to be protected from the Britney Spears' of the world, and the 50% plus heterosexual Americans who show, with their divorce rates, that their marriage voews are for the most part meaningless.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> First, I called no one a Nazi. My example was merely an illustration of a previou point you had made, by which you justified the consensus of a majority as valid, even if it resulted in the discrimination of a minority. Carrying that argument to its logical conclusion, I added the following thought: since the racial laws of the III Reich were passed by a democratically elected government, are those laws untouchable?


 No, you were comparing the laws you disagree with, with those of Nazis.  It's a typical analogy designed to diminish anyone who disagrees with you.  It's pure hyperbole. 

Of course, if that's not what you meant, then it should be clear to you by now how sometimes analogies can be misconstrued.  



			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Secondly: you still have not proven to me why race is any different from sexual orientation. The truth of the matter is, the "marriage" debate aside, that even when it comes to civil unions, 11 states passed legislation (sometimes with voter approval) that bars gay and lesbian individuals from enjoying certain rights. Fine, let's say we call it civil unions: how then would you justify the refusal of many conservatives (sanctioned by referendum in some US states) to deny gays and lesbians even the right to sign a power of attorney or to have their union recognized in any form or shape?


 What I said was that your struggle was not even on par with black children forced to attend substandard schools because of the color of their skin, of being lynched in the south, or being denied the right to vote.  Much less, even remotely on par with millions of Jews and other 'undesireables' marched in to gas chambers and slaughtered.

As for justifying anything, I don't have to.  I've defended the rights of homosexuals in these forums before, but I also have the right to disagree on certain points, that being that the word 'Marriage' isn't remotely important in this discussion.  I believe it's an irrelavency, and that a civil union law can be passed that says nothing about marriage.

Moreover, I don't see how your rights are violated if your 'civil union' certificate says 'civil union' while a heterosexual couples says 'marriage'.  You've yet to make that case.  For that matter, two people who live together Platonically for decades should be able to file for 'civil union'.  It should be a legal contract, based on how mixed finances become at a certain point, not an endorsement of marriage.

So, the question now becomes, why is it SO important to be called 'legally married', so long as you get all the legal benefits of marriage, if it isn't to make some point to society?  If that's the only point, then you certainly don't have a real claim on that part of the argument, as it's trivial.  

If you read the actual arguments posted, instead of responding instinctively to arguments based on what you expect to hear, you might just find some room for compromise.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What I said was that your struggle was not even on par with black children forced to attend substandard schools because of the color of their skin, of being lynched in the south, or being denied the right to vote.  Much less, even remotely on par with millions of Jews and other 'undesireables' marched in to gas chambers and slaughtered.



Says who? may I remind you that the III Reich also sent to gas chambers hundreds of thousands of homosexuals? Or have you forgotten about that? How about the persecution (burning, anyone?) of homosexuals in previous periods of history? Are you saying homosexuals were not slaughtered at any point in history? Why are you so hellbent on denying the suffering of those people, may I ask??? Oh sure, you are referring to myself. Ah... I should be so THANKFUL that I am not being executed or burnt, shouldn't I??? 

And may I remind you, that today in this day and age, gay and lesbian people continue to being beaten up and in many cases killed exclusively because of their sexual orientation, in the US and abroad. What is this, a competition of "I am holier than thou" sort of thing? 

If you do not understand the argument about the III reich's laws being enacted democratically and yet being morally reprehensible and ethically unacceptable, then I have nothing else to say to you. 

Goodbye.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Says who? may I remind you that the III Reich also sent to gas chambers hundreds of thousands of homosexuals?


 And.....That has to do with the present situation how?  Are you suggesting not giving you a document that says "Marriage Certificate" is akin to gassing you?  Come, now ave, at some point you have to see the absurdity of your hyperbole.  Most especially when it's already been conceeded to give you a document that says 'civil union' that gives you all the rights and priveleges granted to married couples.  Denying you those two words on a piece of paper equates to the holocaust? Please.  




			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Or have you forgotten about that? How about the persecution (burning, anyone?) of homosexuals in previous periods of history? Are you saying homosexuals were not slaughtered at any point in history? Why are you so hellbent on denying the suffering of those people, may I ask??? Oh sure, you are referring to myself. Ah... I should be so THANKFUL that I am not being executed or burnt, shouldn't I???


  No, you should stop exaggerating.  Could you possibly be any MORE melodramatic?  

Christians were fed to the lions, too, are you saying that means you should never question anything a christian says?  I hardly think you'd agree with that.  



			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> And may I remind you, that today in this day and age, gay and lesbian people continue to being beaten up and in many cases killed exclusively because of their sexual orientation, in the US and abroad. What is this, a competition of "I am holier than thou" sort of thing?


  All of those acts are crimes, and have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.  Try to focus.  



			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> If you do not understand the argument about the III reich's laws being enacted democratically and yet being morally reprehensible and ethically unacceptable, then I have nothing else to say to you.
> 
> Goodbye.


 No, I understand the argument....for what it is.  A false argument, a logical fallacy, an appeal to emotion, by invoking evil acts throughout history, and trying to anchor your particular issue as being on par with them, you hope to simply have your position accepted as completely unassailable.   It doesn't fly.

You are not being marched in to gas chambers, you are not being fed to the lions, you are not being burned at the stake.  You are angry because the government will not grant a license that says, at the top, 'Marriage Certificate' to homosexual couples.  Pretending it's more than it is, doesn't make it so, and it really takes away from any reasonable discussion.

Please verify...Is the agenda to ensure that homosexual couples receive the same protections as heterosexual couples?  If so, it is irrelavent what that document says.



Also, per the repeated references to the Nazis, Hitler and the 3rd Reich, I draw your attention to Godwin's Law of on-line debate as well as the Reductio ad Hitlerum. 



> 'As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.'
> Although the law does not specifically mention it, there is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law



> The "reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy is a special case of the genetic fallacy, of the form "Adolf Hitler, or the Nazi party, supported X, therefore X must be evil". This fallacy is often effective due to the near-instant condemnation of anything to do with Hitler or the Nazis.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

With SPECIAL emphasis, I point to Case's corollary to Godwin's Law



> If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to 1 (i.e. certainty)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Sircar's corollary



> If the Usenet discussion touches on homosexuality or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.
> This rule may seem identical to the previous, but they differ slightly in that the Case corollary states probability, while the Sircar corollary also includes a time limit. These two rules are sometimes incorrectly cited as the same and attributed to both authors.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


It's an exact science. :rofl:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

Gentiles,
  Read the links I posted. 1 of them lists numerous -Christian- faiths that not only respect same gender relations, but will also ordain them, marry them, and love them as what they are, fellow human beings. You may not "understand" it, but it is there, and references are provided, in some cases a great deal of them.

You, because you have not gone through it, can not understand what the problem is. She has. There are a ton of laws on the books outlining protections based on race, religion and gender. -VERY- few on sexual orientation.

For example: The Boy Scouts will kick out any member or leader they find who is gay. They get to keep this right as a "private club", yet it is illegal to be a "whites only" or "blacks only" or "men only" organization.  Seems a bit unequal to me.

One should not have to continuously move in-order to find happiness.
Laws were passed, unpopular laws I remind you that:
- Allowed blacks to marry.
- Allowed for interracial relationships
- Allowed for true integration between races, not just "black school' and 'white school'.
- Allowed Women to vote

There were protests, marches, and violence.

Wouldn't it be nice if the US could skip that last part?

Then again, maybe it would be nice if all the same gender couples would leave the US. I think that would be nice.  I wonder...how many scientists, educators, lawyers, doctors, librarians, priests, nurses, etc we would lose.  A US, run by Conservative Christianity, and Red Necks. Why, that would be a true utopia. :barf:


The comparison to the Nazi's is wrong. We know, because our government said so, that it would never spy on it's people, create secret police organizations, send groups of it's citizens to secret camps where they are tortured, or do other things that fascist governments would do. Like try to pass through discriminatory laws at the highest levels and when that fails, try to force the 50 independent nations that makes up it's union to do the same on a more local level.


And, as to the "feeding to the lion" part....I always felt it was cruel...to the lions.

Half of this argument is about a word. A word that has meaning, pride and happiness associated with it.

Imagine how stupid it sounds using the word union.
"Did you get Unioned today?"
"Why yes, we had our Union. It was a grand gathering. We had a big Union Pastry"

Or

"Did you get Married today?"
"Why yes, we had our Wedding. It was a wonderful Ceremony. We had a huge Wedding Cake".

I like the latter. It sounds more special.  The first one makes me roll my eyes.

But, lets reserve "Marriage" for the "straights".
What else must they reserve?
"Wedding" has to go. Gays can have a "Civil Ceremony".
"Wedding Cake" would have to go too. No wedding, no need to have cake. Maybe they can have a "Union Brownie". Nah, sounds too much like General Grant.
"Bride". Nope. Brides can get "Married", can't use this one. For that matter
"Groom" is also off the list of "allowed words". Maybe we can use "primary and secondary". Nice neutral words.
"Bridesmaids". Yup, can't use that one. Only Brides can have Brides maids. How about "gal-pals"
"Best Man". Hmm..we can probably keep that, but it'll take on a whole new meaning. Maybe we can just use "buddy".

So, the "Primary" and his/her "Buddies" and the "Secondary" with his/her "gal-pals" will attend the "Civil Ceremony" to recognize the "Civil Union" in a wonderful "Civil Ceremony" before heading off to a lawyers office to sign a gazillion documents, half of which will be legally ignored by various state and government organizations without worry or fear of prosecution.

In the mean time, across town, the Groom accompanied by his best man, and the Bride followed by her bridesmaids will have a wonderful Wedding to celebrate their Marriage and then head off on their honeymoon, content knowing that regardless of where they go in the nation, they are protected by over 1,400 federal and state rights.

Yup. Thats fair.  And if they don't like it, they can move! They can move! Because moving isn't a big deal. Uprooting your entire life, packing it into small boxes, and having strange sweaty men toss them indiscriminately into a truck then unpacking in a strange neighborhood, where you don't know where anything is, or who anyone is, until once again, you slip up, get caught holding a hand, and the local prude police start hassling you, legally I might add, so that you have to do it all over again!  Makes you wonder if the real people behind things here is the Movers Union.


America claims to be the land of the free, defender of freedom, home of the brave.  I can think of no braver people, than those who come "out" in the face of bigotry and hatred, to try and get some of that freedom for themselves. Moving isn't the answer, separate terms aren't the answer. Same term, same rights. Period. We are talking about 2 people, not a man and a horse, or a cat marrying a dog. 2 Human Adults who want to have the same opportunities, the same rights and the same responsibilities as anyone else. I believe it's a crime to continually fight to deny them, and someday, they will get that right. The ball is in motion, and the world is moving on. Maybe in 3 years the US can start to catch up.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Yup. Thats fair.  And if they don't like it, they can move! They can move! Because moving isn't a big deal. Uprooting your entire life, packing it into small boxes, and having strange sweaty men toss them indiscriminately into a truck then unpacking in a strange neighborhood, where you don't know where anything is, or who anyone is, until once again, you slip up, get caught holding a hand, and the local prude police start hassling you, legally I might add, so that you have to do it all over again!  Makes you wonder if the real people behind things here is the Movers Union.
> 
> 
> America claims to be the land of the free, defender of freedom, home of the brave.  I can think of no braver people, than those who come "out" in the face of bigotry and hatred, to try and get some of that freedom for themselves. Moving isn't the answer, separate terms aren't the answer. Same term, same rights. Period. We are talking about 2 people, not a man and a horse, or a cat marrying a dog. 2 Human Adults who want to have the same opportunities, the same rights and the same responsibilities as anyone else. I believe it's a crime to continually fight to deny them, and someday, they will get that right. The ball is in motion, and the world is moving on. Maybe in 3 years the US can start to catch up.



Mr. Bob, 
A thousand times, thank you, thank you, thank you. I have nothing else to add. 
:asian:
A.T.


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, you were comparing the laws you disagree with, with those of Nazis.  It's a typical analogy designed to diminish anyone who disagrees with you.  It's pure hyperbole.
> 
> Of course, if that's not what you meant, then it should be clear to you by now how sometimes analogies can be misconstrued.



No, it is your interpretation that is disingeneous. I was analyzing exactly what you had previously said: that is, your basic argument that, if a majority of the population of a particular territory decides democratically to uphold certain laws - even if they are discriminatory in nature - then they should stand because they were approved "democratically." And I brought up the III Reich because that is exactly what happened there: get over the Nazi thing, really. The same goes for any law approved by any democratic government that takes rights away from individiauls... oh, wait!!!! THAT is not supposed to happen in democratic nations, where the law is supposed to protect, not punish, individuals. Because democracy, after all, is not only about referendums (heck, not even a majority of the residents of those states approved the law: a majority of Americans do not even vote!!!)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

The United States of America is NOT a democracy.
Never has been.
Democracys are ruled by the people.
The USA is a Republic. Republics are ruled by those representatives elected by the people. Personally, I'm not sure which would frighten me more in this case. If we left it totally to the will of the people, we'd still have whites only drinking fountains in the south I suspect.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2005)

Wow, six new pages of this since I logged in yesterday! Plus, I see that Godwinization has occurred.

I didn't read all this. It's still a civil rights issue to me, and the 'separate but equal' comments are on target.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I resent the attempt to control the language. Until recently, this was the only definition of the word
> 
> http://www.wordreference.com/definition/marriage
> 
> "1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"


 
You should probably talk to an anthropologist or two before making claims like this. There has _never_ been a uniform definition of "marriage" in Western civilization, at least not in the past 100 years.

Also, words change. Languages change. It is a fluid social construction that evolves with a culture. One needn't look any further than the word "gay" itself to see proof of this.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> You should probably talk to an anthropologist or two before making claims like this. There has _never_ been a uniform definition of "marriage" in Western civilization, at least not in the past 100 years.
> 
> Also, words change. Languages change. It is a fluid social construction that evolves with a culture. One needn't look any further than the word "gay" itself to see proof of this.
> 
> Laterz.


 pfffft.  Please.  'Never a uniform definition of marriage"?  I guarantee 100 years ago no one would ever define marriage as anything OTHER than between a man and a woman.  Nor, would they define it so 50 years ago.  This issue is very recent, and your statements are nothing but MORE evidence that there are those with an interest in controlling the language.

What's more, I find it ludicrous that I have to ask a cultural anthropologist to define words for me.

Again, this whole argument is silly.  It is about what people call themselves, which they are free to do any time they want.  'We got married today', blah.  There is nothing preventing ANYONE from saying that.  It's a fabricated issue, not any different than the asinine attempt to 'Save Christmas'.  

It's an issue fabricated by the left to shore up their support base among homosexuals, by offering them something in exchange for their vote, just as the Christmas issue is fabricated by the right.  

And, quite frankly, that's what I resent, the whole manipulation of it.  Call yourself married if you want, get a marriage license.  It doesn't change that it's a fabricated issue.  I've been married, and i've not been married.  Really, it doesn't make much difference.  A committed relationship is a committed relationship.  

I've been in the same committed relationship for 4 years, and the fact that i'm not married really is irrelavent.  I really don't understand the big deal, myself.  

As this post has already been Godwinized yesterday, i'd say this is already a thoroughly beaten dead horse.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I've been married, and i've not been married. Really, it doesn't make much difference. A committed relationship is a committed relationship.
> 
> I've been in the same committed relationship for 4 years, and the fact that i'm not married really is irrelavent. I really don't understand the big deal, myself.



I hope you never have to find out first hand what those differences truely are. :asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I hope you never have to find out first hand what those differences truely are. :asian:


 
Whatever those differences may be, I don't need government approval.  

The assumption is that i've been arguing against homosexuals.  Quite frankly, I really don't care what two (or more) adults do in the privacy of their own home, just as I don't want others in interfering in mine.  What I take exception to is the idea that the government needs to endorse everything before it can be legitimate.

All I care about is that the government doesn't interfer.  I never understood the 'every one has to accept me' philosophy.  I don't need government endorsement, I just don't want government interference.  

Perhaps it's my libertarian leanings, but I really don't get the whole idea that the government has to sponsor every little act of society.

Maybe the should government get out of the marriage business entirely.  'Deregulate the industry' so to speak.  If religious institutions want to endorse marriage, fine.  But stop treating married people as more important than single people.  Some people find it quite frankly offensive and a violation of my rights as a single person, that married people are given preferential treatment.  I mean, have you ever been single out with married people?  Now that's unfair.  

What's, more why just one wife?  I mean, as there is no REAL traditional definition of marriage, why can't I have two?  I mean, if we live in a loving relationship, what's wrong with being married to two (or more) women?  I find it hypocritical that we not support pluralistic marriages.  It's pure discrimination.  

I'm mean, if we're just going to redefine what marriage is at will for everyone who declares themselves a minority, there is no greater minority than the individual.  Every individual should be able to decide, for himself or herself, WHAT marriage is.  If that's two men, a woman and a nerf herder, why can't they all get married to each other?   Heck, 5 or 6 people could get married to each other, and then insurance would be cheaper.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What's, more why just one wife? I mean, as there is no REAL traditional definition of marriage, why can't I have two? I mean, if we live in a loving relationship, what's wrong with being married to two (or more) women? I find it hypocritical that we not support pluralistic marriages. It's pure discrimination.


You can. Just have to move to a state with the right set of laws.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> You can. Just have to move to a state with the right set of laws.


 I want national protection.   I want it granted by the courts.  This is about fundamental human rights.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> pfffft. Please. 'Never a uniform definition of marriage"? I guarantee 100 years ago no one would ever define marriage as anything OTHER than between a man and a woman. Nor, would they define it so 50 years ago. This issue is very recent, and your statements are nothing but MORE evidence that there are those with an interest in controlling the language.


 
And I can assure you the field of cultural anthropology has defined "marriage" very differently for a very, very long time.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What's more, I find it ludicrous that I have to ask a cultural anthropologist to define words for me.


 
And yet random websites can do the trick??  

This is relevant because anthropology is the field that specifically examines what it is we're talking about. Namely, how social definitions and understandings within a culture evolve and adapt as time and circumstances dictate. Simply invoking supposed "common knowledge" or "popular wisdom" in this criteria is little more than an Appeal To Common Practice.

This isn't even controversial or advanced stuff, either. It's really basic anthropology.

Laterz.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

Some information on Poligamy: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ssmpoly.htm
BTW - Thats a seperate topic.... hint hint, nudge nudge, know whatImean?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 18, 2005)

Why would anyone WANT 2 wives?

Thats what girlfriends are for.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Some information on Poligamy: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ssmpoly.htm
> BTW - Thats a seperate topic.... hint hint, nudge nudge, know whatImean?


 Actually, they are linked, as the idea that homosexual marriage is a basic human right, implies that ANY marriage is a basic human right.  Moreover, it basically implies that what any combination of humans decide is marriage, is a basic human right.  

I do note, however, that the counter argument in your article, Bob, is that homosexual marriage will not, by necessity, lead to polygamy.  I ask a different question.  What is wrong with polygamy that is NOT wrong with homosexual union?  

If all that's required is a minority view that it is correct, hey, go for it.  I suggest if we're going to endorse homosexual marriage, lets just leave it open to any number of combination of humans as well.  

Just because the 'traditionalist' view is that it's two people, a man and a woman, it doesn't mean it HAS to be a man and a woman, it could be a woman and a woman, a man and a man, a woman, a man and another woman, three men, two elves and a dwarf, etc, etc, etc,.

If we assume that all is required is a 'minority' view that it SHOULD be allowed, what should we NOT allow? 

I've yet to hear an argument that this is NOT the ultimate conclusion.  Most of the arguments i've received have cleverly (and not so cleverly) tried to side-step and avoid this classic Reductio ad absurdum argument.

This is the argument provided, please, those posting their disagreement with me, deal with the argument made.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Why would anyone WANT 2 wives?
> 
> Thats what girlfriends are for.


 Then one of your 'loved ones' is without access to cheap insurance! I really don't think that's fair, and it discriminates against the girlfriend! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I mean, what happens if you are sick.  Then your wife can prevent your girlfriend from access to you.  I think that's horrible.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

> I do note, however, that the counter argument in your article, Bob, is that homosexual marriage will not, by necessity, lead to polygamy. I ask a different question. What is wrong with polygamy that is NOT wrong with homosexual union?



I don't find anything wrong with polygamy, and got nothing against group marriages, when they are properly organized (The "master and his sex slaves idea I find repulsive). For that battle to take place though, this one must first be won.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I don't find anything wrong with polygamy, and got nothing against group marriages, when they are properly organized (The "master and his sex slaves idea I find repulsive). For that battle to take place though, this one must first be won.


 Or eliminate state endorsed marriage.  There is nothing that stops homosexuals from living together as mated pairs.  There's nothing that stops 20 people from living in a loft in an open relationship.  They just want state sanction for it.  I say eliminate state sanction.  If a church wants to marry people 'spiritually', then they can keep marriage records.  I say END special priveleges for married peoples, END THE DISCRIMINATION! 

As pointed out on another forum, the Constitution, at it's core, is a document addressed to the government telling them what they CAN and CANNOT interfer with in the lives of normal citizens.  I don't need government endorsement, I just need them to leave me alone.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

Yes, 2 individuals can cohabitate, without church or government sanction.
They however cannot obtain those 1,400+ rights without it. 
Moving into the area of polygamy or "rights for singles" is not applicable here.

The issue is, rights of a same gender couple vs rights of an opposite gender couple.

As to the question of government interference, that's a whole other, ugly discussion. (Been there.)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Yes, 2 individuals can cohabitate, without church or government sanction.
> They however cannot obtain those 1,400+ rights without it.
> Moving into the area of polygamy or "rights for singles" is not applicable here.
> 
> ...


Those are not 'rights', they are privileges, and as they are stated as unfair to some, lets eliminate them entirely.    

So I say lets simply eliminate government endorsement, that closes the book entirely.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2005)

My understanding is that, overwhelmingly, marriage in the sense of a social contract has been heterosexual, allowing in many cases for multiple spouses (typically, multiple wives). I don't think there are extensive examples of legalized homosexual marriage--even the Romans married women, then had affairs with men.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> My understanding is that, overwhelmingly, marriage in the sense of a social contract has been heterosexual, allowing in many cases for multiple spouses (typically, multiple wives). I don't think there are extensive examples of legalized homosexual marriage--even the Romans married women, then had affairs with men.


 Oh, but anthropologists (apparently) disagree...or something.

You see, in trying to define marriage over the last 100 years, anthropologists concluded that marriage is difficult, maybe even impossible to define. As a result, anything we decide marriage is...marriage is. Heretic888 made the point that we should defer to the anthropologist in this decision making process.

Of course, to arrive at the conclusion, anthropologists started with the faulty assumption that the definition of the word marriage has to be constructed around a universal definition of marriage that applies in every culture (even though we don't live in every culture), and that ANY example contrary to the predominant view is enough to contradict the standard definition. And, therefore, ANY definition of marriage are as applicable as any other.

In other words, to the view of an anthropologist, if we can find even ONE exception, anywhere, then there can be no universal definition of 'marriage'. A dubious position at best. 'We can't define it, so it can't be defined'.....

And, really, how is that ANY different than my point that the core of this argument is altering the very definition of the words themselves. That we have now concluded that the words are meaningless, and, therefore open for 'redefining' is ONLY evidence at the cleaverness of the argument in destroying the definition.

But, here's where the Gordian knot gets cut...We aren't defining marriage for ALL cultures, we're defining it for OUR culture, and it is clear how OUR culture has defined marriage. Therefore, an anthropologists statement that marriage can't be defined...anthropologically, is irrelavent, because we aren't looking for a universal definition. We are looking for a culture definition, which has been made clear. 

It would be no different if an anthropologist said there were no culture or political system superior to any other. That doesn't mean that they are or are not, it merely means the methods by which anthropologists judge systems is based on a preconceived notion that a scientist should maintain 'objectivity', or, more to the point, should not make value judgements. That's fine in the research field of cultural anthropology, but that doesn't translate in the 'real world', as anthropology is research and analysis of different cultures and how they compare, objectively.

Value judgements are necessary in the real world, even if they considered an error in anthropology. The definition about what does and does not constitute marriage is a value judgement. As anthropologists are not in the business of making value judgement, that pretty much negates their decision in the matter.


What is really interesting, however, is that anthropologists tend to argue that there is no objective value system, as many different peoples hold many different moral positions. As such, it is impossible to determine a universal system of values or morals (see discussion going on a couple forums over). That's all fine and well, but then, in the vacuum created by the moral relativism, many then seek to replace the previous moral position (which they worked so hard to destroy by stating that there was no absolute moral system) with a new value system, that they claim is 'absolutely moral' (see references to universal human rights).

Now, which is it, Heretic, is there or is there not a universal value system? If there isn't, then how is NOT allowing homosexuals marriage licenses a violation of a value system that, by definition, cannot exit universally?

The Boasian influence on anthropology has been that much anthropology becomes activist in nature. Moreover, the two front assault seems to be 

A) Redefine terms by stating that anthropology has proven that there is no universal values (as, the examination of various cultures show many different value systems) A statement that may be true, but then it's followed up with

B) There really is a universal value system, that we vaguely refer to under the heading 'Human Rights'. (Kind of a contradiction of the first statement, don't you think).

It's really this contradiction that confuses me.  Why would we believe simultaneously that no value system is superior to another, and then fight so hard to replace one value system with another?

Ultimately, both aspects of that argument cannot be correct, as they are contradictory.  Either there is no universally applicable value system, or there IS, and the arguer simply believes it's his/hers.  However, both positions cannot simultaneously be true.  

Ultimately I might be inclined to agree with certain conclusions addressed in this forum. However, i'm concerned when I see obvious contradictions such as illustrated above. Perhaps someone could clarify this for me.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2005)

I can imagine using a different definition for academic study. One wants definitions that don't depend on an individual socities particularities.

But, that doesn't change the fact that those socities that have instituted such a system have almost always done it between (at least one) man and (at least one) woman.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

On the historical aspects, as well as issues, etc, try here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

This is additional information besides what I posted previously.

I found it interesting that it names Nero as 1 individual maried to men (twice)...however I haven't found reference to that outside the initial Wiki article.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2005)

Lots of 'analogous to marriage' but not so much 'recognized by the society as equivalent to heterosexual marriage' so while I can imagine academics making their own definitions and see the value of such, I don't see evidence that socities have typically recognized the analogy (with inheritance rights, in-laws, etc.).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2005)

Maybe, but until recently they also didn't recognize inter-racial or cross-religion relations. They also didn't recognize woman as equal, a problem still in much of the world.  

The fact here is, the world is moving forward, accepting peoples differences, and granting them previously withheld rights and privileges. I for one think it's a damn shame that a nation proclaims "For Liberty and Justice For All" feels the need to lag behind and tag the words "except for those who love their own gender" to that proclamation.

Allowing or denying same-sex marriages will not have any effect on me. I haven't encountered any member of my own gender so far that stirs passion in my heart. But, I've known others who have, and for their sake, and the sake of the tens of thousands of others out there I feel compelled to lend my voice to theirs as they fight for equality.  I would prefer seeing this issue resolved quickly, so that we can focus on more serious threats such as famine, poverty, and homelessness from a more unified front.  

Bottom line, same gender relations deserve all the same privileges, rights and responsibilities as opposite gender relations, under the same terms, without any "separate but equal" ********. To discriminate based on sexual orientation should be illegal, and I believe to do so is a violation of the core principles this nation was founded on. "Life, Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness"
Hard to have a life when one is denied Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has to be placed on hold so that you can move from one nest of close minded people to another.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 19, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Lots of 'analogous to marriage' but not so much 'recognized by the society as equivalent to heterosexual marriage' so while I can imagine academics making their own definitions and see the value of such, I don't see evidence that socities have typically recognized the analogy (with inheritance rights, in-laws, etc.).


 Yes, i've yet to see a society that has traditionally viewed same-sex marriage as a common accepted practice.  By a multi-culturalist argument, polygamy has a better claim to legitimization than homosexual marriage.


I really don't care either way, but i'm real interested in seeing a good argument presented as to what makes homosexual marriage important in contrast to these other issues.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2005)

Try Spain, or Canada.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 19, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Maybe, but until recently they also didn't recognize inter-racial or cross-religion relations. They also didn't recognize woman as equal, a problem still in much of the world.


 But from an anthropological position, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those issues you've named.  They are considered valid by far more cultures than consider them wrong.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The fact here is, the world is moving forward, accepting peoples differences, and granting them previously withheld rights and privileges. I for one think it's a damn shame that a nation proclaims "For Liberty and Justice For All" feels the need to lag behind and tag the words "except for those who love their own gender" to that proclamation.


 Who's to say that's moving forward.  Other cultures might consider it 'moving backwards', or in the wrong direction.  In fact, an argument has been made that societies don't 'move forward' at all.   That progress is really an illusion, do you disagree?



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Allowing or denying same-sex marriages will not have any effect on me. I haven't encountered any member of my own gender so far that stirs passion in my heart. But, I've known others who have, and for their sake, and the sake of the tens of thousands of others out there I feel compelled to lend my voice to theirs as they fight for equality. I would prefer seeing this issue resolved quickly, so that we can focus on more serious threats such as famine, poverty, and homelessness from a more unified front.


 Perhaps, perhaps not, that case has yet to be entirely made.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Bottom line, same gender relations deserve all the same privileges, rights and responsibilities as opposite gender relations, under the same terms, without any "separate but equal" ********. To discriminate based on sexual orientation should be illegal, and I believe to do so is a violation of the core principles this nation was founded on. "Life, Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness"
> Hard to have a life when one is denied Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has to be placed on hold so that you can move from one nest of close minded people to another.


 Oh, that's a misunderstanding of 'rights'.  Rights as defined by the Constitution, prevent the government from interferring with your life and activity.  That's what "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" mean.  It doesn't mean the government is going to HELP you be happy, it means they shouldn't interfer.  It's also not a guarantee OF happiness, merely the right to pursue.  As far as that is concerned, simply not interferring is protection of rights enough.

I think it's a common fallacy today that every person has a right to have the government do something FOR them.  It's enough to have the government stay out of the way as much as possible.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 19, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Try Spain, or Canada.


 Those are recent innovations in western culture, recent as in less than decades, just a few years.   They certainly aren't indicative of the vast cultures across history.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> But from an anthropological position, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those issues you've named. They are considered valid by far more cultures than consider them wrong.


And both slavery and women-as-property were also considered acceptable by many cultures. Still is in some areas. Doesn't make it right for a nation that prides it self on freedom and equality.



> Who's to say that's moving forward. Other cultures might consider it 'moving backwards', or in the wrong direction. In fact, an argument has been made that societies don't 'move forward' at all. That progress is really an illusion, do you disagree?



I've always founf that reality, especially before lunchtime to be an illusion. Those folks who have to be up at 6am to drive 2 hours to work each day, tend to disagree.



> Oh, that's a misunderstanding of 'rights'. Rights as defined by the Constitution, prevent the government from interferring with your life and activity. That's what "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" mean. It doesn't mean the government is going to HELP you be happy, it means they shouldn't interfer. It's also not a guarantee OF happiness, merely the right to pursue. As far as that is concerned, simply not interferring is protection of rights enough.



You're right, it's not a guarantee OF happyness, just the right to pursue it. However, these discriminatory actions done by federal and state officials are direct interference of that right to pursue.



> I think it's a common fallacy today that every person has a right to have the government do something FOR them. It's enough to have the government stay out of the way as much as possible.




If the government hadn't gotten involved, we might have a Confederacy as a southern neighbor.   
If government hadn't gotten involved, those freed slaves might still not be allowed to marry, or vote, or hold office.   
If government hadn't gotten involved, women might still be restricted to "barefoot and pregnant".   
If government hadn't gotten involved, 5 year olds might still be working on coal mines.   
If government hadn't gotten involved, there might still be sawdust and worse in your food.   
If government hadn't gotten involved, many of those 1,400 rights and privilages allowed OGC wouldn't be in there.   
If governemtn hadn't gotten involved, there would still be "whites only" signs across the "bible belt".
As much as I don't like the amount of government involvement in our lives, sometimes, it is necessary in order to do what must be done, even if it's unpopular.  It's simple really. Extend the coverage nation wide to -2- people at the federal level, allow for civil ceremonies, and let the religions work out their positions on their own.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 19, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> And both slavery and women-as-property were also considered acceptable by many cultures. Still is in some areas. Doesn't make it right for a nation that prides it self on freedom and equality.


 I'm merely pointing out that there is no objective standard of right and wrong, most especially if we leave this notion up to anthropological standards of value.  If any cultural value is valid, then every cultural value is valid.  By what criteria am I to decide what is right and wrong?




			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I've always founf that reality, especially before lunchtime to be an illusion. Those folks who have to be up at 6am to drive 2 hours to work each day, tend to disagree.


 Who's right, you or them?




			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> You're right, it's not a guarantee OF happyness, just the right to pursue it. However, these discriminatory actions done by federal and state officials are direct interference of that right to pursue.


 Would homosexuals be LESS happy if the government did not endorse marriage at all?  If not, then the source of the unhappiness is not derived from the government, and anything it HAS done, but merely from the perception of being slighted.  In other words, the government has provided a privilege for one child, and another child feels it's unfair, so THEY want the privilege to.  There is no act that actually impedes the pursuit of happiness, except in the mind of the allegedly slighted child.  That government ever got in the privilege giving business in the first place is the mistake.  

What's more, how are you right to impose your ethical standards on me?  Those from one state have no right to impose their political and moral views on those from another.  

The courts in the US have decided that mere discrepency between groups alone is not enough to be concidered descrimination.  For example, several law suits have questioned certain child support payments based on equal protection.  Specifically, they question forcing fathers to pay child support beyond the child's 18th year, if that child is enrolled in college.  Moreover, those child support payments can be enforced until the child is 22.

Basically, the argument goes, that this violates a divorced parents equal protection under the law, as he is forced by the government to do what no married person is forced to do, and that is pay money for his child beyond their 18th birthday.  Now, as this is an act that government IS actively performing, the conclusion of the court certainly applies to acts of omission by the government.

The courts have decided in those cases that the government IS allowed to single out divorced parents for child support, and that the simple act of treating them to a different standard, alone, does not meet a charge of violation of equal protection.  



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If the government hadn't gotten involved, we might have a Confederacy as a southern neighbor.


Was it right to impose our northern ideals through war and aggression against another people with a different position?  How is aggression the solution to a social problem?



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If government hadn't gotten involved, those freed slaves might still not be allowed to marry, or vote, or hold office.


 Again, no culture is any superior to any other culture.  



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If government hadn't gotten involved, women might still be restricted to "barefoot and pregnant".


Who says that makes culture 'better', if there is a such thing as one culture being better than any other. 

Moreover, the above listed are a bit of an appeal to emotion, by claiming that not allowing homosexual marriage is on par with slavery, for example.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> As much as I don't like the amount of government involvement in our lives, sometimes, it is necessary in order to do what must be done, even if it's unpopular. It's simple really. Extend the coverage nation wide to -2- people at the federal level, allow for civil ceremonies, and let the religions work out their positions on their own.


  Yet you haven't made the case why that is a universal civil right, or why it should be restricted to just 2 people.  What's so magic about the number 2?  Historically, 3 or more has been just as acceptable as 2 homosexuals?  Why this discrimination based on the number 2?


----------



## Kane (Dec 19, 2005)

Heh heh, I think Bob is trying to use the universal liberal argument for all issues. Bringing up issues such as race to further push an agenda that has nothing to do with race.

sgtmac_46 asked an interesting question which is basicly the whole idea of this thread: "Would homosexuals be LESS happy if the government did not endorse marriage at all?"

Another interesting question to add to that is;

"Would heterosexuals be LESS happy if the government did not endorse marriage at all?"

Perhaps both sides will be equally pissed and happy at the idea. Either way you look at it, one side is no happier or sadder than the other. How is that not equality? How does that not fair? If marriage is such a reletive term why does the government have to take a stance on it?

Bob said;

"Extend the coverage nation wide to -2- people at the federal level, allow for civil ceremonies, and let the religions work out their positions on their own."

Fine let's let two people have a federal or civil union. Do we have to call it marriage? Is that so important to you?

I think most of our nation is ready for compromise. Either the seperate but equal union solution or the solution I am proposing (take the word marriage out of government). But some people just want it their way and their way only.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 19, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Heh heh, I think Bob is trying to use the universal liberal argument for all issues. Bringing up issues such as race to further push an agenda that has nothing to do with race.
> 
> sgtmac_46 asked an interesting question which is basicly the whole idea of this thread: "Would homosexuals be LESS happy if the government did not endorse marriage at all?"
> 
> ...


  You know, in all honesty, i've been having a lot of fun with this debate.  It seems that both sides have some rather disingenuous arguments of why they support their position.  Personally, I have no real issue with allowing homosexuals to apply for and be granted a marriage license.  As a general rule, I don't think it hurts anything if they can have a ceremony and call a union marriage.

The problem is that I just haven't gotten a clear, HONEST, answer about why it's so important that it be called marriage.  Usually, what i've gotten is something along the lines of 'it's about CIVIL rights' and then either Hitler or Slavery is invoked, and some grandiose argument about how western civilization will JUST end if we don't have same-sex marriage, or the insinuation that it will simply return us to the Jim Crowe era, or that '10,000 rights are being violated' by not allowing a same-sex couple to marry.  Seems a little melodramatic.

Can't we just be clear.  We want to call it marriage because we think that calling it marriage will give it legitimacy and will force the portion of society that doesn't agree with homosexuality to accept it?  What we're really talking about here is altering people's prejudicies and beliefs through litigation.   Is that so hard to admit to? :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2005)

The waters continue to muddy, and non-important-to-the-argument issued brought in.

I gave past examples of past "accepted practices" that were overturned by government action, that is all.

It's 2 people because it's primarily 2 entities throughout nature. Nature BTW that has homosexual relations throughout the animal kingdom, humans being just another animal.  Larger groups are also "normal" and will most likely someday have their own day in the spotlight. That battle is not this battle.

The idea of suddenly dropping all government sanctioning of marriage is ludicris. It will never happen.

As to much of the rest, it's not applicable (though Sarge, if you want my opinion on the War of Northern Aggression, do a search here. I've gone over that before)

We want to call it marriage because that is what it is. Ya obviously missed my earlier post.

Why shouldn't same gender relationships be allowed?
Why shouldn't they be given the same rights and called the same thing as OGR?

I still haven't seen any strong arguments.
I see:
 - I'm single, why give them special rights?
 - Call it something else but give them the same privileges.
 - It's wrong because "God" said so.
 - etc.

Why should it be called marriage?
Because there are years and years of work that went into building the rights, responsibilities and privileges surrounding it. Calling it something else will only confuse people, and create a nice cash cow for lawyers as thousands of court cases are refought to obtain these benefits again, when simply extending the coverage would avoid the confusion and heartache.

Sarge,
  If your girlfriend is hospitalized, you stand a good chance even if you have papers not being allowed in. Married couples have the following rights:
    * Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
    * Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

If she is the victim of crime, you're SOL unless married. Married couples can receive crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

If the worse should happen, even with proper papers you may not be able to Making burial or other final arrangements. You will not receive numerous estate and death benefits. Like, keeping the house if it's in her name.

Same gender couples have been evicted, separated from children, been denied health and life insurance, lost property, etc when their partner died. There are no provisions.  Partners family hates you, you're screwed. It's that simple.

The plain and simple fact is, separate but equal is not right. Creating a new term for the same thing is pointless and only serves to satisfy a small portion of the bigots. Stripping the rights from millions to satisfy a wish to continue to discriminate against thousands is flat out wrong, especially when used to complain about the lack of certain benefits for singles. People do not plan "partnerships", they don't buy books on "unions", they don't dream of someday "cohabitating". They plan Weddings, and dream of Marriage.

They should have the opportunity to pursue that dream, not have it blocked by a small group of bigots.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You know, in all honesty, i've been having a lot of fun with this debate. It seems that both sides have some rather disingenuous arguments of why they support their position. Personally, I have no real issue with allowing homosexuals to apply for and be granted a marriage license. As a general rule, I don't think it hurts anything if they can have a ceremony and call a union marriage.
> 
> The problem is that I just haven't gotten a clear, HONEST, answer about why it's so important that it be called marriage.


 
The word itself implies something to people. Calling it something else will be seen as a pejorative; a civil union is seen as 'merely' a civil union, not the full equivalent of marriage. There are social rights as well as legal rights; something as simple as being invited to events together because one is a recognized couple.

Asking for _marriage_ means asking for all of it--the good, the bad, and the ugly. A civil union is just a registration at city hall; a marriage creates a _family_. There's just too much wrapped up in it.

Would you rather say to your parents "This is my husband" or "This is the man with whom I have a civil union"? The first statement has greater strength, greater impact; it bespeaks a fuller commitment and demands greater recognition and respect.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes, i've yet to see a society that has traditionally viewed same-sex marriage as a common accepted practice.


 
Agreed; it's mostly a modern invention. But I think its time has come. The fact that marriage per se has not often been recognized between members of the same sex in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't do it now; that's not my point. I'm four-square behind the idea. But to say that one can look back and frequently find same-sex _marriage_, rather than same-sex unions of a lower social and legal standing, seems revisionistic.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The problem is that I just haven't gotten a clear, HONEST, answer about why it's so important that it be called marriage.


 
For those who missed post #19 .... let me repeat myself.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The word 'marriage' means more than a union ... here are a few words that are wrapped up within the term 'marriage' ...
> 
> ... soul-mate
> ... lover
> ...


 


			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Can't we just be clear. We want to call it marriage because we think that calling it marriage will give it legitimacy and will force the portion of society that doesn't agree with homosexuality to accept it? What we're really talking about here is altering people's prejudicies and beliefs through litigation. Is that so hard to admit to?


 
No ... we are not talking about altering peoples beliefs through litigation. If you choose to have a belief against homosexuals, that is your perogative. 
Just let's be sure we call that belief by a clear definition; bigotry.  

And, I don't think calling it 'marriage' will force anything on anyone. You yourself claim you prefer 'living in sin', you seemed to make the statement in a jovial manner. What does that position force on me? .... Zip. Nada. Nothing. Your arrangements are your own. They have no effect on me. The same thing will happen with 'gay marriage', when it is as commonplace as 'living in sin'. Today, its in the news. Next year ... it will be a yawner.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 20, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The waters continue to muddy, and non-important-to-the-argument issued brought in.
> 
> I gave past examples of past "accepted practices" that were overturned by government action, that is all.
> 
> It's 2 people because it's primarily 2 entities throughout nature. Nature BTW that has homosexual relations throughout the animal kingdom, humans being just another animal. Larger groups are also "normal" and will most likely someday have their own day in the spotlight. That battle is not this battle.


 Not true at all.  Many animals don't mate for life.  There is even a primate or two that live with one female and two or three attached males, all of which she mates with.  What's more, many human cultures have accepted multiple wives.  So if your argument is 'It's done in nature at times' then you have to accept the argument that multiple mated pairs can exist as well, unless you only want to selectively apply accepted practices.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The idea of suddenly dropping all government sanctioning of marriage is ludicris. It will never happen.


 Ludicrous 30 years ago was the idea that government might endorse same-sex marriage.  If you had said that then, people wouldn't even have known what you were talking about.  I think it's well past time government stopped endorsing marriage.  It's a moral and religious institution, and the government has no place in it. 



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> As to much of the rest, it's not applicable (though Sarge, if you want my opinion on the War of Northern Aggression, do a search here. I've gone over that before)


 It's no more or less applicable than discussing slavery or nazism.  You brought up slavery, and then insinuated that it was an institution that was common practice, and wrong.  I merely pointed out a prevailing argument among many, even on this thread, that one society should not interfer with another.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> We want to call it marriage because that is what it is. Ya obviously missed my earlier post.


 It's only marriage if we decide to give it that label.  For the sake of argument, give me a definition of marriage.  I'm all ears.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't same gender relationships be allowed?
> Why shouldn't they be given the same rights and called the same thing as OGR?


 Bit of a ficitious argument, Bob, I didn't say same sex 'relationships' shouldn't be allowed, I questioned why it needed to be called marriage.  You're altering the discussion.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I still haven't seen any strong arguments.
> I see:
> - I'm single, why give them special rights?
> - Call it something else but give them the same privileges.
> ...


 Are you inferring that I said God said it was wrong?  If so, you're putting words in to my mouth.  I'm agnostic on my most believing day. 

I'm questioning the need to grant homosexuals special government priveleges not granted a single person.  If say 'because married people get it' then my argument is to strip those rights from married people to make it fair for ALL. 



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Why should it be called marriage?
> Because there are years and years of work that went into building the rights, responsibilities and privileges surrounding it. Calling it something else will only confuse people, and create a nice cash cow for lawyers as thousands of court cases are refought to obtain these benefits again, when simply extending the coverage would avoid the confusion and heartache.


 Wait, i'm sorry, I thought you listed a bunch of governmentally granted rights and legal issues as the reason to call it marriage.  Now you want to argue that it's a social issue?  That you want to call it marriage so others accept it?  



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Sarge,
> If your girlfriend is hospitalized, you stand a good chance even if you have papers not being allowed in. Married couples have the following rights:
> * Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
> * Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.


 Then strengthen the living will law to give absolute authority to anyone that the person designates as being the person they want making choices.  What if a woman had a very good platonic friend, who she had NO sexual relationship with, and they were good friends throughout life, and she wanted her friend to make decisions for her in times like that.  Should they HAVE to be MARRIED in order to have their wishes granted?  Or is that a right denied single people with no desire to marry?



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If she is the victim of crime, you're SOL unless married. Married couples can receive crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.


 So your argument is two people should have to be married before they should be able to allow each other to make those life decisions?  Basically, punishing ANYONE who decides, as a lifestyle decision, NOT to get married?  How big of you.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If the worse should happen, even with proper papers you may not be able to Making burial or other final arrangements. You will not receive numerous estate and death benefits. Like, keeping the house if it's in her name.


 So, again, special rights should only be given to married people?



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Same gender couples have been evicted, separated from children, been denied health and life insurance, lost property, etc when their partner died. There are no provisions. Partners family hates you, you're screwed. It's that simple.


 What happened to wills?  Only married people should be protected?



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The plain and simple fact is, separate but equal is not right. Creating a new term for the same thing is pointless and only serves to satisfy a small portion of the bigots. Stripping the rights from millions to satisfy a wish to continue to discriminate against thousands is flat out wrong, especially when used to complain about the lack of certain benefits for singles. People do not plan "partnerships", they don't buy books on "unions", they don't dream of someday "cohabitating". They plan Weddings, and dream of Marriage.


 I agree, it's time we stopped this discrimination of people who aren't married, by those who desire to enforce their moral views on the rest of us through government endorsement.  I'm convinced, Bob, thanks.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> They should have the opportunity to pursue that dream, not have it blocked by a small group of bigots.


 I agree, it's time the pro-marriage bigots got off our backs.  I shouldn't have to be married, in order to insure that me and the woman I live with are given the same rights as a married couple.  Thaks, Bob.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






This government endorsment of a moral institution violates seperation of church and state.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> For those who missed post #19 .... let me repeat myself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yes, which is exactly why government shouldn't be in the business of endorsing moral agreements between people.

If two people want to have a ceremony in a church that reflects their moral and religious views, so be it.  But that ceremony should bestow on them rights and priveleges denied to those who don't desire to pursue that path.  That the state sees it as it's mission to endorse what is, at it's core, a religious tradition, I feel is a mistake.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 20, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes, which is exactly why government shouldn't be in the business of endorsing moral agreements between people.
> 
> If two people want to have a ceremony in a church that reflects their moral and religious views, so be it. But that ceremony should bestow on them rights and priveleges denied to those who don't desire to pursue that path. That the state sees it as it's mission to endorse what is, at it's core, a religious tradition, I feel is a mistake.


 
But the government *IS* in the business of endorsing this thing which you refer to as a 'moral agreement'. 

The argument is being made, take government out of this business. The problem this creates, is the problem that has existed througout history. Marriage was the anthropological solution to show 'ownership of children'. 

Earlier in European History, Queens used to give birth in the public square. The event could be viewed by all of her majesty's subjects. As the offspring of the queen was the future ruler, it was important to *prove* the child was the queens. 

Yet, there was no way to *prove *the Fathers' participation in the child. Even if the King-Queen were to mate in public, there is no way to prevent the Queen from having another lover. This argument was also made for 'work-hands' on the family farm. Heiredity rights to the family business.

Marriage as a construct (common law) has been around for a long, long time to solve these problems. Governments have formalized this construct because one of the function of governments is to define the laws under which the citizenry will live. 

So, let's take a look at the two options.

a) Eliminate a social construct that has been in existance for the 11,000 years of human agrarian societies (and probably longer).

b) Allow homosexuals to participate in the social construct that has been in existance for the 11,000 years of human agrarian societies.

Which will have the smaller impact on those societies? 

As long as government *is* in the business of sanctioning what you call a 'moral agreement', where the limits of that sanctioning exist is also a moral agreement. Morally, treating some as less than equal, is, in my view, reprehensible.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But the government *IS* in the business of endorsing this thing which you refer to as a 'moral agreement'.
> 
> The argument is being made, take government out of this business. The problem this creates, is the problem that has existed througout history. Marriage was the anthropological solution to show 'ownership of children'.


 So this is about children now?  I think we're digging deeper and deeper in the psychological motives of this whole issue.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Earlier in European History, Queens used to give birth in the public square. The event could be viewed by all of her majesty's subjects. As the offspring of the queen was the future ruler, it was important to *prove* the child was the queens.


 


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yet, there was no way to *prove *the Fathers' participation in the child. Even if the King-Queen were to mate in public, there is no way to prevent the Queen from having another lover. This argument was also made for 'work-hands' on the family farm. Heiredity rights to the family business.


 


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Marriage as a construct (common law) has been around for a long, long time to solve these problems. Governments have formalized this construct because one of the function of governments is to define the laws under which the citizenry will live.


 None of which guaranteed parentage.  Now we have DNA.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, let's take a look at the two options.
> 
> a) Eliminate a social construct that has been in existance for the 11,000 years of human agrarian societies (and probably longer).


 Is this an appeal to tradition?  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> b) Allow homosexuals to participate in the social construct that has been in existance for the 11,000 years of human agrarian societies.


 
Or c) End a discriminatory government sanction of a lifestyle that punishes those who refuse to participate in government sanctioned ceremonies.




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Which will have the smaller impact on those societies?


 The smallest impact on society would be to leave the situation as it is presently...if your concern is the smallest impact.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> As long as government *is* in the business of sanctioning what you call a 'moral agreement', where the limits of that sanctioning exist is also a moral agreement. Morally, treating some as less than equal, is, in my view, reprehensible.


 Seems a contrived argument, given your position on other issues.  Treating unmarried people as unequal to married people is, therefore, reprehensible.  I'm merely following an argument you constructed.  Treating some as unequal because they choose a different lifestyle path is morally reprehensible.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 20, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The smallest impact on society would be to leave the situation as it is presently...if your concern is the smallest impact.
> 
> Seems a contrived argument, given your position on other issues. Treating unmarried people as unequal to married people is, therefore, reprehensible. I'm merely following an argument you constructed. Treating some as unequal because they choose a different lifestyle path is morally reprehensible.


 
Your 'smallest impact' leaves some 'unequal'. Which is fine, if that is what you want. Let's bring back segregation while we're at it, too.

Of  course it is a contrived argument. 
GOVERNMENT IS A CONTRIVED CONSTRUCT. 
MARRIAGE IS A CONTRIVED CONSTRUCT.

There is also reason why we can't setup 'Straight' and 'Gay' public washrooms, and water fountains.... 

Everything is a Contrived Construct. Homo Sapiens are small group mammals. We perhaps thrive best in communities of 50 to 100 (I have seen ideas that show communities as large as 250). Having a government for 300,000,000 is quite a bit against what history has shown works best for our species. (Four Million Years of hunter gatherer v Eleven Thousand Years of agrarian existance).

But, since we are constructing these contrivances, we can certainly define them as we wish.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2005)

Sarge, you can have most of those privilages. Just get ye to a lawyer and have him start writing things up for you. Most will probably be accepted. Maybe. It'll just take you alot of time, money, effort, etc. If you like, start a movement on equal rights for non-married couples. Course, you'd need some way of varifying your couple status....

The issue isn't your lack of rights and privilages and responsibilites. You chose to do that. These people are being denied a choice.  One that you and I have.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 20, 2005)

Ah yes, replace the one-size-fits-all concept of marriage by pre-nups for everyone! Define _your _marriage as you wish it. We could go that way...it seems to lose something, though!


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 20, 2005)

I just stumbled upon this. Hey, I guess they too can move to another state... 

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon05/12/121905immigration.htm

*Immigration Bill Could Destroy Binational Gay Couples*
_by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff_ 


(Washington) LGBT civil rights groups are calling on the Senate to reject portions of legislation aimed at protecting America's borders but as written could have a severe impact on binational same-sex couples.
The "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act" is awaiting Senate action. It cleared the House last Friday.
Immigration policies already prohibit gay, lesbian and bisexual citizens from sponsoring their foreign national partners for immigration benefits
Currently, a foreign national in a relationship with an American citizen is forced to live out of status and is committing a civil violation, not a criminal offense.
But the Immigration Control Act would criminalize anyone in the U.S. without documentation, including lesbians and gay men with no other way to keep their families together.
Because the bill dramatically expands the definition of "harboring," U.S. citizens living with undocumented partners could be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned, and have their homes and assets seized.
"Our nation should unify families, not tear them apart. Instead of moving in that direction, Congress has increased the barriers to allowing loving families to stay together," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
"This bill threatens the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and HIV-positive immigrants and asylum-seekers and the American citizens who love and care for them."
The bill also would jeopardize  the safety of LGBT asylum-seekers fleeing persecution.
The bill makes many people ineligible for asylum, and eliminates almost all rights to federal judicial review of viable asylum claims.
These policy changes are particularly dangerous for LGBT/H asylum-seekers who often do not know when they first arrive that HIV status, sexual orientation and gender identity persecution are grounds for asylum Solmonese said.
"This bill cloaks a virulent anti-immigrant bias in the guise of sham 'security' measures," said Rachel B. Tiven, Executive Director of Immigration Equality, the only national LGBT immigrant rights organization.
"It will not make America safer," she added.
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) , the lead sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, legislation that would keep lesbian and gay families together, also has sent up warning signals about the Immigration Control Act.
"This latest anti-immigrant legislation poses an especially grave threat to LGBT immigrants. Whereas heterosexuals in binational relationships will be able to shelter their foreign partners by sponsoring them for legal status, LGBT partners will be powerless to stop the government from destroying their committed relationships. This is fundamentally cruel and unjust."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Your 'smallest impact' leaves some 'unequal'. Which is fine, if that is what you want. Let's bring back segregation while we're at it, too.


 Oh, please, you always have to demonize don't you.  You have a disagreement with someone, They're 'nazis' or 'slave owners' or 'segregationists'.  Is there any civil conversation with you that doesn't involve demonization of any who disagrees with you?




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Of course it is a contrived argument.
> GOVERNMENT IS A CONTRIVED CONSTRUCT.
> MARRIAGE IS A CONTRIVED CONSTRUCT.


 That's right, and that's why it's not an absolute right that homosexual couples get the right to marry.  Even if they didn't the Republic would survive, other rights would be enforced.  All of this hyperbolic arguments really don't serve your cause.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is also reason why we can't setup 'Straight' and 'Gay' public washrooms, and water fountains....


 Again with the hyperbole.  Can you ever have an argument that doesn't involve you equating the opposition with nazis or racists?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> But, since we are constructing these contrivances, we can certainly define them as we wish.


 Yes, and that certainly means NOT legalizing gay marriage, without it not necessarily mean we're turning in to Nazis, or slave traders, OR returning to segregation.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, when the issue of Gay Marriage showed up on the Missouri ballot, the idea of which was to define marriage as strictly that of a man and a woman, I decided to vote against it.  Was it because I thought the world would enter a new dark age if homosexuals didn't have the right to marriage?  No.  Was it because I thought we'd suddenly become Nazi germany and start rounding up homosexuals? 

Again, no.  It was because it was an issue that really didn't effect me, and some homosexuals thought it would enrich their lives, so I figured why begrudge them that.  There was no real harm involved in allowing it.  That having been said, the idea that we are demonizing anyone who disagrees I find distasteful.  

I have had a lot of fun playing devil's advocate on this debate.  I appreciate the arguments.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Oh, please, you always have to demonize don't you. You have a disagreement with someone, They're 'nazis' or 'slave owners' or 'segregationists'. Is there any civil conversation with you that doesn't involve demonization of any who disagrees with you?
> 
> 
> That's right, and that's why it's not an absolute right that homosexual couples get the right to marry. Even if they didn't the Republic would survive, other rights would be enforced. All of this hyperbolic arguments really don't serve your cause.
> ...


 
I don't believe I have brought up the term Nazi. Please don't ascribe it to me.

I propose giving homosexuals *the same* rights as heterosexual. Anyone who proposes otherwise, is arguing for segregation ... take part of the population, and group them apart from the rest. 

Segregation does not mean 'Slave Owner', and I don't believe I have used that term, either.

So, please stop putting words in my mouth, to further your 'devil's advocate' argument.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't believe I have brought up the term Nazi. Please don't ascribe it to me.


 Not this time you didn't.  You just insinuated that my position was tantamount to racism and segregation.  Again, three things that always get brought in to these discussions...Slavery, Nazism and Segregation.  Just pointing out the other two.  So please don't ascribe THOSE to ME.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I propose giving homosexuals *the same* rights as heterosexual. Anyone who proposes otherwise, is arguing for segregation ... take part of the population, and group them apart from the rest.


 Segregation is a loaded word designed to ascribe segregations CONNOTATION, not the denotation, so please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that wasn't your intent.  

What's more, the denotation of segregation doesn't apply, because no one is recommending seperation in any sense between homosexuals and society, therefore segregation is only a word designed to provoke an emtional response that does not describe anything having to do with the debate.  Again, don't insult my intelligence. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Segregation does not mean 'Slave Owner', and I don't believe I have used that term, either.


 No, it means seperating homosexuals from the rest of society, which NOBODY in this thread has brought up but you.  



			
				michaeldward said:
			
		

> So, please stop putting words in my mouth, to further your 'devil's advocate' argument.


 Your words, michael, inaccurate words designed to build an ad hominem argument by labelling me a segregationist.  I'd appreciate it if you stopped, please.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Not this time you didn't. You just insinuated that my position was tantamount to racism and segregation. Again, three things that always get brought in to these discussions...Slavery, Nazism and Segregation. Just pointing out the other two. So please don't ascribe THOSE to ME.
> 
> Segregation is a loaded word designed to ascribe segregations CONNOTATION, not the denotation, so please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that wasn't your intent.
> 
> ...


 
Please stop ascribing the words 'Slavery' or 'Nazism'.

I will gladly accept another suggested term for denying one group of citizens the rights others have, if you have one available. For the moment, 'segregate', seems to fit. Seperate but Equal was thrown around, and I think we have shown that 'Civil Unions' are not Equal to Marriage.

So break out the Thesaurus. 

I did not ascribe Slavery or Nazism to you, by the way. I did use the word "bigotry".


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 23, 2005)

Mod Note:

I don't want to discourage this discussion, my intent is not to shut it down.  But folks, we do need to focus more on the issue and less on the people.  Please, can we keep this from getting personal?

Thank you for your attention.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Senior Mod-


----------



## DeLamar.J (Dec 26, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Homosexual union is pretty a new concept. Never in thousands of years has this issue ever been brought up which is why there so little talk about it. Homosexuality in many cultures (especially Abrahamic cultures) is considered a wrong and a sin punishable by death. However, as we all know homosexuality does occur in Nature among other animals as well as humans. It may have something to do with upbringing, but it may also have to do with genes. In Brito-Indian culture today homosexuality is looked down upon strongly and yet there are more homosexuals there than here! So how can homosexuality be wrong if you are brought up with it?
> 
> But hey, believe whatever you want. Let gays do whatever they want and if you don't like them then don't be around them (although you should realize that it most likelly is not a wrong). Let gays do any sexual acts they want to each other.......oh yea now there is laws that protect this right . So then a couple or more decades ago sex between to consenting adults became legal. Great! Now homosexuals have all the rights they can ever have right?
> 
> ...


People just need to leave the gay people alone and let them do there thing. It dont hurt me that joe and bob have sexual relations, so why should I care. As long as they are not breaking any laws or hurting anyone, then I dont see anything wrong with it. Now, the mental aspect of this issue I see a little different, but thats a whole different topic.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Dec 26, 2005)

I was just wondering about something. Say in the future that gay becomes ok, they adopt kids, all get married, the works. As the child grows up being raised by gay parents, does he decide in kindergaten that he wants a boyfriend because daddy and daddy are gay, or a girlfriend?
Then I begin to wonder, if he chooses a boyfriend because the two role models in his life are gay, then is he really gay? Or just impressionable? 
How would you feel if your son was the little boys boyfriend? Is gay ok then? This is very interesting to me and I hope that someone has the answers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 26, 2005)

I think it doesn't matter much on the parental genders, that a child will gravitate towards what they naturally want. As long as the child is raised in a loving family, it should turn out ok. I mean, how many 'gay' individuals were raised in a 2 gender home, yet discovered their own attractants?


----------



## Kane (Dec 27, 2005)

What is the problem with just taking the word "marriage" out of government programs and economic unions? If marriage is such a relative term I ask again and again why does the government have to take a stance on it? Why can't we just have civil unions (or some other word instead of the word "marriage") for all types of consenting adults? Is this that difficult to solve? It is just a freaking word!

Its ironic that some of the people in this thread who are arguing to keep marriage as a government term want to eliminate the word "God" out of everything in the government. God can mean many things too, it is a bit strange to me that some of you think the word god is harmful but marriage isn't.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> What is the problem with just taking the word "marriage" out of government programs and economic unions? If marriage is such a relative term I ask again and again why does the government have to take a stance on it? Why can't we just have civil unions (or some other word instead of the word "marriage") for all types of consenting adults? Is this that difficult to solve? It is just a freaking word!
> 
> Its ironic that some of the people in this thread who are arguing to keep marriage as a government term want to eliminate the word "God" out of everything in the government. God can mean many things too, it is a bit strange to me that some of you think the word god is harmful but marriage isn't.


 
Kane ... I will, again, make two points.

1 - Government *is* in the business of marriage and you aren't going to be able to change that. (and incidentally, our government is not in the god business).

2 - It is *not *just a 'freaking word'. There is an emotional and social context in that 'freaking word'. You proposal *still* denies those contexts to a portion of the population. 

And, you continue to mischaracterize thoughts and attitudes. I don't think anyone has said that the word 'god' is harmful. 

Call it what it is, Kane, "Bigotry: the acts or beliefs of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and predjudices".


----------



## Mark L (Dec 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Kane ... I will, again, make two points.
> 
> 1 - Government *is* in the business of marriage and you aren't going to be able to change that. (and incidentally, our government is not in the god business).
> 
> ...


 No it isn't just a word, it is the union of a man and woman. Will you admit this is a defintion that has persisted and been commonly accepted for a very long time? And now a small group wishes to change that defintion. I am entirely supportive of gay and lesbian couples sharing equivalent legal, social, and economic liberties and freedoms as married couples. But it isn't, by the widely accepted defintion, marriage. Changing that defintion to fit the desires of a small, vocal minority should occur only if our society as a whole wishes it. Let the democracy work!


----------



## Kane (Dec 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Kane ... I will, again, make two points.
> 
> 1 - Government *is* in the business of marriage and you aren't going to be able to change that. (and incidentally, our government is not in the god business).
> 
> ...



I'm still waiting for the reason why the proposal I put forth *still* denies those contexts to a portion of the population. What portion of the population do you speak of??

Marriage is really just a word in reality. We as human beings put meaning on the word. Some of us say that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has always been) but some people think it is also between a man and a man as well as a woman and a woman. The government can't take a stance on such a relative term!

You can call it what you want. In reality the bigotry is with you considering you think opinions that differ from your own are bigotry. My solution is the furthest away from bigotry.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 27, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for the reason why the proposal I put forth *still* denies those contexts to a portion of the population. What portion of the population do you speak of??
> 
> Marriage is really just a word in reality. We as human beings put meaning on the word. Some of us say that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has always been) but some people think it is also between a man and a man as well as a woman and a woman. The government can't take a stance on such a relative term!
> 
> You can call it what you want. In reality the bigotry is with you considering you think opinions that differ from your own are bigotry. My solution is the furthest away from bigotry.


 
You can call it something other than marriage only if the union between a man and a woman is called the same thing. Otherwise court battles will have to be fought to include the new word in every law and statute where the word marriage is used. Rights will be denied and lawyers will get rich.


----------



## Mark L (Dec 27, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> You can call it something other than marriage only if the union between a man and a woman is called the same thing. Otherwise court battles will have to be fought to include the new word in every law and statute where the word marriage is used. Rights will be denied and lawyers will get rich.


Wrong!  It is not the same thing, that's why it should be called something else!  If court battles have to be fought as a result, then fight them.  If you want rights to be upheld, then fight for them.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> No it isn't just a word, it is the union of a man and woman. Will you admit this is a defintion that has persisted and been commonly accepted for a very long time?


 
That is *A* definition, but I can not, and will not, accept it as the *only *definition.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not defined marriage in this way, which is why the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts said that it was unconstitutional (at the State level) to deny a marriage license to same-sex partners. 



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Marriage is really just a word in reality. We as human beings put meaning on the word.


 
When you get the human beings to put all of the meanings currently associated with 'marriage', associated with 'civil union', I will buy your proposal. Today ... 'marriage' carries much more context than a 'union' of any type. 

And if you choose to call my opinions bigoted, please not that they are bigoted in such a way as to *include* our homosexual neighbors, as opposed to excluding them.


----------



## Mark L (Dec 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> That is *A* definition, but I can not, and will not, accept it as the *only *definition.
> 
> The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not defined marriage in this way, which is why the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts said that it was unconstitutional (at the State level) to deny a marriage license to same-sex partners.



The Massachusetts SJC has legislated from the bench, which is why there is significant activity to get the issue on the next ballot.  They have usurped the will of the People without our consent by imposing their own activist views as the law of the state (I'm not a lawyer, my layman's interpretation is that marriage is not a constitutional right).  As a MA resident this infuriates me, and many, many others.  And they will be held accountable.  

As to it being *A* definition, you are correct.  However, it is a pervasive one.  What do you think the response would be if you asked 100 likely, registered voters in each of the 50 states what marriage is?  That's all, not is marriage between a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, just "What is marriage?".  Or for more immediate feedback, start a poll here.  Would you accept the opinion of the majority at the state, national, or internet forum level?  

What do you wish the defintion of marriage to be?  The union of two people that love each other?  How about my 45 year old neighbor Fred and 12 year old Jessica down the street, or those NAMBLA guys?  Just adults you say?  What about my mother and my sister.  Or why is it restricted to two people?  Why not me, my current wife, and our dearest freind(s) whom we both love?  Why should polygamy be excluded if the relationship is genuine?  Maybe I'm being ridiculous, but maybe not.  Do you have a clear, concise definition of what you think marriage is?  If so, does it exclude any group, however small? 

This is a difficult issue, and I truly hope there is a remedy that allows same-sex couples equal rights and protection under the law.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2005)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court *has not* legislated from the bench. 

The Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens".

The court has stated "marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry"

Further, marriage "is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family".

"Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-defintion."

And before the ruling,  same-sex couples were not only denied full protection of the laws, but were "excluded from the full range of human experience."

I will further add that the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court are: 

Marshall - Appointed by Weld (R)
Cowin - Appointed by Celluci (R)
Greaney - Appointed by Dukakis (D)
Ireland - Appointed by Weld (R)
Cordy - Appointed by Celluci (R) - Dissent
Sosman - Appointed by Celluci (R) - Dissent
Spina - Appointed by Celluci (R) - Dissent



You are right, though Mark L, the citizens of Massachusetts will soon get to vote on the issue. And according to all the polls, those opposed to the same-sex marriage are decreasing in numbers. Rapidly. Most Massachusetts citizens are discovering that if 'Deb' and 'Donna' get married, it has absolutely no effect on their lives; so, what the hell. 


Please don't confuse same-sex marriage with pedophila. It's not funny. It's not cute. And it is not accurate. 



And, if you truly want to grant same-sex couples equal rights and protections, just "do nothing" because the Supreme Judicial Court has already provided those equal rights and protections to the citizens of the Commonwealth.


----------



## Kane (Dec 27, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> You can call it something other than marriage only if the union between a man and a woman is called the same thing. Otherwise court battles will have to be fought to include the new word in every law and statute where the word marriage is used. Rights will be denied and lawyers will get rich.



  YES, this is exactly my point. Michaeledward's poor reading comprehension prevents him from understanding that all the proposal will do is take marriage out of government use and call it something else (I suggested just to call it a civil union) for both types of couples. It is that simple. Michaeledward wants to change the attitude of people using government means when this is a clear violation of liberty. You want all people (or at least most people) to view homosexual unions as marriage? Arrange huge rallies or whatever and try to change people's minds that way. My solution is not conservative ideal, in reality it is a liberal ideal.



 Also, Michaeledward still hasn't explained to me how this solution puts homosexuals at a disadvantage.


----------



## Mark L (Dec 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court *has not* legislated from the bench.
> 
> The Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens".
> 
> ...


I am not confused, I don't think it is funny, or cute.  Is "What the hell?" the best defense of this recent action by the SJC?  To be completely honest, Deb and Donna getting married has no effect on me at all.  What about Deb and DOnna and Denise?  I'm not trying to be provocative, I am trying to understand specifically and exactly what the defintion of marriage is morphing too.  I suspect that whatever it is now in 2005, it will proceed to include that which is considered extreme (see my last post) down the road.

Please attribute the quotes.  In my few posts on this topic I have indicated I, too, wish for equality under the law for same sex couples, which is not in conflict with those quotes above.  The issue as I see it reflects on the "highly public celebration ... ".  The SJC has taken the decision out of the public domain.  Should we not have the opportunity to weigh in on what we as a society believe are "the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family".  If you want society to celebrate, son't you think we should agree on what we're celebrating?  

You have not answered either of my questions.  What is your definition of marriage?  What do you think a fair poll would reveal?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> YES, this is exactly my point. Michaeledward's poor reading comprehension prevents him from understanding that all the proposal will do is take marriage out of government use and call it something else (I suggested just to call it a civil union) for both types of couples. It is that simple. Michaeledward wants to change the attitude of people using government means when this is a clear violation of liberty. You want all people (or at least most people) to view homosexual unions as marriage? Arrange huge rallies or whatever and try to change people's minds that way. My solution is not conservative ideal, in reality it is a liberal ideal.
> 
> 
> Also, Michaeledward still hasn't explained to me how this solution puts homosexuals at a disadvantage.


 
michaeledward's reading comprehension is just fine thank you, so, you need not resort to the ad hominem attack. 

And this idea is in no way a 'liberal ideal'. 

michaeledward has explained that by calling both civil institutions something other than marriage, does not do away with the term marriage. michaeledward has explained that those connotations are the very thing that same-sex couples wish to share. In another post, michaeledward quoted the language of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, marriage "is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family." 

Until society is willing to accept another word that fits this definition, the proposed solution is, according to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, exclusionary to "the full range of human experience."


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> I am not confused, I don't think it is funny, or cute. Is "What the hell?" the best defense of this recent action by the SJC? To be completely honest, Deb and Donna getting married has no effect on me at all. What about Deb and DOnna and Denise? I'm not trying to be provocative, I am trying to understand specifically and exactly what the defintion of marriage is morphing too. I suspect that whatever it is now in 2005, it will proceed to include that which is considered extreme (see my last post) down the road.
> 
> Please attribute the quotes. In my few posts on this topic I have indicated I, too, wish for equality under the law for same sex couples, which is not in conflict with those quotes above. The issue as I see it reflects on the "highly public celebration ... ". The SJC has taken the decision out of the public domain. Should we not have the opportunity to weigh in on what we as a society believe are "the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family". If you want society to celebrate, son't you think we should agree on what we're celebrating?
> 
> You have not answered either of my questions. What is your definition of marriage? What do you think a fair poll would reveal?


 
The quotes are from the Majority Opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. 

My definition of marriage is the thing I share with my "wif", and what she shares with her "ubband". She and I have defined marriage for ourselves. It is something I am fortunate to have discovered, and to continue to discover each and every day. It is an intensely personal thing. And I am not sure I can describe it here, but I am certain, I don't want to. 

I think the poll would reveal nothing of value. If you polled the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence on the topic of slavery, what do you think it would find? If you polled Southern Democrats in 1948 on Civil Rights, what do you think it would find? 

I think that when we look back at this in our old age, we will wonder what all the fuss was about.


----------



## Mark L (Dec 27, 2005)

michaeledward has no standing in Massachusetts, as his bio indicates NH as his location.

Please answer the questions posed.  Why won't you?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> michaeledward has no standing in Massachusetts, as his bio indicates NH as his location.
> 
> Please answer the questions posed. Why won't you?


 
michaeledward was born in Holyoke, Massachusetts.
michaeledward was raised in Agawam, Massachusetts.
michaeledward is a graduate of Agawam High School and Westfield State College in Massachusetts. 
michaeledward worked in Massachusetts, and paid taxes in Massachusetts from 1980 through 1997.
michaeledward voted in Massachusetts throughout the 80's and 90's, until he moved to New Hampshire to marry is wonderful wife. 

Which question, or questions, do you feel I have not answered sufficiently?


----------



## Mark L (Dec 27, 2005)

Thank you for answering the question.  I feel much the same about my own marriage as you have have expressed about yours.  I guess my problem is that you imply your marriage is an intensely personal affair, as it should be, and yet you advocate that society must, by court decree, accept the very public display of this new marriage paradigm.  I see a paradox ...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2005)

The paradox that you see, is a very real thing. The laws written by legislatures throughout the country are often intentionally vague, and sometimes unintentionally vague. 

(Laws that are exceedingly specific should be carefully scrutinized. I think often, they are buried in the voluminous tax code.)

Because of the paradoxically vague nature of laws, courts need to interpret them. When a court interprets a law in a way counter to our beliefs, we decry 'activist judges'. The term itself is meaningless. If only the legislature could define the laws specifically. This, however, would make the law so cumbersome as to be meaningless.

In our society, we demand the courts protect the rights of the minority. While the principle of 'majority rule' is a foundation upon which the Republic is constructed, the minority must accept that the majority will not vote their rights out of existance. If the minority does not buy into the belief system, the Republic will crumble. (Cigarette taxes are an example - we continue to tax the **** out of smokers, justifying our inequity under 'health concerns', while using the receipts in the general fund)

So, yes, marriage is intensely personal. And we should demand that the courts protect 'Deb and Donna', 'Steve and Stan', and 'Don and Dawn' all equally. Let them each define marriage for themselves.


----------



## Mark L (Dec 27, 2005)

It must truely suck to be the minority, and I do sincerely hope that the majority recognizes that position.  I certainly do, that is why I can't see my way to a clear solution to this situation. 

Nice to spar with you ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2005)

Kane,
  What would the cost be in time, money and most importantly, tax dollars to rewrite all of the laws to strike the term "Marriage", replace it with "Civil Union" and educate the public about this change? Also, how will you justify the incredible expenditure involved towards standing still?  

Also, how much will it cost in money, time and pain, everytime a SSM couple has to go to court to fight for a right already explicitly allowed under the old term, but missed when things were "renamed"? 

===
I don't agree with letting the general public vote on this. The reason is simple. At various times, most recently the 1950-60's, if the idea of racial equality had been left to the voters, there would still be black/white only areas in Alabama. Equality has proven that it must be fought for, and then legislated, then enforced, often in opposition of "public will".
===

The comparison to NAMBLA is repulsive. There are already laws on the books to protect children from such things. There are also laws on the books allowing someone as young as 12 marry, with parental consent. The comparison doesn't apply.

The question about legal protection for groups is fitting, and while currently illegal in this country, it has been supported by at least 1 US religous group, and is common in some other cultures. Those battles will also come, though most likely not in my lifetime.


----------



## Kane (Dec 28, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> michaeledward's reading comprehension is just fine thank you, so, you need not resort to the ad hominem attack.
> 
> And this idea is in no way a 'liberal ideal'.
> 
> ...


 
   It seems like your justifications don't reflect your fine reading comprehension in that case. The whole of society doesn't have to accept taking marriage out of government use, although I sure a lot of society would not care as much about this. The point here is that if government takes a stance on the issue how is it liberty? If our government took a stance on Christianity as an official religion would that be wise? I'm sure perhaps even most of the population would be okay with that considering our nation is largely Christian. Would that be fair? Of course not! You act as if once homosexual marriage is legal that everyone will learn to accept it but this is clearly not true. That is like saying banning abortion will make the population accept it. This ain't true. It is a universal moral issue to many. The government should use a different word even if some of the population does not agree. This is still the most neutral way to handle this. Use a different term for the MA definition in that case.



    This isn't a liberal way of handling the situation? Well it depends what you mean. If we mean liberal as in liberals' attitude then perhaps this isnt liberal. By liberal by definition means liberty. This includes liberty to decide what marriage is without the government taking a stance on the issue (similar to the government not taking a stance on religion.


----------



## Kane (Dec 28, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Kane,
> 
> What would the cost be in time, money and most importantly, tax dollars to rewrite all of the laws to strike the term "Marriage", replace it with "Civil Union" and educate the public about this change? Also, how will you justify the incredible expenditure involved towards standing still?
> 
> ...


 
  Why not? I you do not want to pay the cost because you do not believe in this solution. Would you want to pay tax money if they decided to ban homosexual marriage with an amendment? It sounds to me that you would be strongly against that. Would someone oppose to same-sex want to pay tax money for legalizing homosexual marriage and actually paying for the marriages? Of course not. So either way either you or someone opposes your view has to suffer.

Where as my solution is completely neutral compared to others. It might piss off both sides but at least one side's opinion is given as much weight as the other side. So I not sure whether this would be a public will solution, but I'm sure this solution will be much better for both sides to digest than one side easily taking the solution they want while the other side remains pissed.

Let us say you have 10 children. 5 of them want something done there way while the other 5 want something done their way. Would you put some children's opinion higher than the other children's opinion if both sides have a point? Well I wouldn't call it fair. I would solve the problem with the solution that will equally give each child's opinion weight.

But in this case here we are not talking about mild childish arguments. We know both sides of these issues have valid points and in a democratic country both sides should be given weight.

No use comparing this to the racial equality issues of the 1950s and 1960s. Homosexuals do not have to give their bus seats to heterosexuals. Homosexuals do not have to use different bathrooms away from heterosexuals. Nope, not at all. Legalizing homosexual "marriage" won't make the two peoples more equal. It will create more friction .


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 28, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> It seems like your justifications don't reflect your fine reading comprehension in that case.


*Again, *with the ad hominem.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> The whole of society doesn't have to accept taking marriage out of government use, although I sure a lot of society would not care as much about this. The point here is that if government takes a stance on the issue how is it liberty?


 
In the very tangible effects of marriage, governments grant over 1,000 rights to couple the instant they exchange marriage vows. By granting those rights, the governments at the State and Federal level *do take a stance* on marriage.

Are you arguing that those rights be repealed? That would be an interesting argument, indeed.

However, it seems that is not the argument before us. It seems the argument before us is to ask all of the citizenry to ignore the intangible effects and components of marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court described some of those intangibles; "mutualilty", "companionship", "intimacy", "fidelity", etc.; and that those intangibles are "highly public".

In your argument, religous organizations are entitled to keep the intangible effects and benefits.

It seems to me that separating the tangible benefits, and the intangible benefits of marriage or ascribing the tangbile to the State, and both the tangible and intangible to Religion is a difficult and unrealistic objective. 



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> If our government took a stance on Christianity as an official religion would that be wise? I'm sure perhaps even most of the population would be okay with that considering our nation is largely Christian. Would that be fair? Of course not!


 
I don't understand why this paragraph is added to your argument. It does not seem to lend any clarity. Are we discussing marriage or religion? 




			
				Kane said:
			
		

> You act as if once homosexual marriage is legal that everyone will learn to accept it but this is clearly not true.


 
I clearly understand that legislating morality is an impossibility. We can not force people to 'accept' same-sex marriage. We can not force people to 'accept' anything against their belief structure. We can expect, however, that the government enforce rights equally among all citizens. 

People can believe whatever crackpot ideas they wish. People can be bigoted and racist. But the State must do everything in its power to guarantee equality among all ideas. 





			
				Kane said:
			
		

> That is like saying banning abortion will make the population accept it. This ain't true. It is a universal moral issue to many.


 
I don't understand why this paragraph is added to your argument. It does not seem to lend any clarity. Are we discussing marriage or abortion?



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> The government should use a different word even if some of the population does not agree. This is still the most neutral way to handle this. Use a different term for the MA definition in that case.


 
This returns to the argument. 
Tangible benefits from marriage are ascribed to the State.
Intangible and tangible benefits from marriage are ascribed to the Church.

I believe this is an unrealistic, if not impossible, task. And, as I think about it more, I think it would lead to an officially sanctioned State Religion.





			
				Kane said:
			
		

> This isn't a liberal way of handling the situation? Well it depends what you mean. If we mean liberal as in liberals' attitude then perhaps this isnt liberal. By liberal by definition means liberty. This includes liberty to decide what marriage is without the government taking a stance on the issue (similar to the government not taking a stance on religion.


 
Again, government is involved in marriage. It grants rights to citizens based on marital status. Unless you are arguing to eliminate all of those rights, the comparison to religion is meaningless. 

Again, I remind you, if Kane marries Kelly, they are immediately granted rights that are withheld from Kent and Kevin. One of the definitions of liberty is "the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges". Using 'liberal' and 'liberty' synonomously does not meet that standard. Kent and Kevin *do not* share the positive enjoyment of various social, political, ecomomic rights and privileges as Kane and Kelly, because Kent and Kevin can not get married (in most places in the United States).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2005)

Kane, you didn't answer my questions, but skirted around them like a polititian.
Do you have an answer to the specifics? 

I don't want to see my taxes going for this battle. I would rather see my courts dealing with issues like murderers, rapists etc, not refighting the last thousand years worth of rights for couples. But, I sincerely hope that any state that does so has it's courts so backed up with civil rights cases and it's coffers bled dry from the costs of trying to justify an outdated and seperatist policy.


----------



## Ray (Dec 28, 2005)

"The Homosexual Union Issue??" 

Oh, my gosh, they've unionized?  Now I'll never be able to afford a decent interior decorator.

<<Sorry, I couldn't help it.>>


----------



## Mark L (Dec 28, 2005)

I wanted to clear up a few points to which I didn't respond during last evening repartee, addressing these issues:


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> michaeledward was born in Holyoke, Massachusetts.
> michaeledward was raised in Agawam, Massachusetts.
> michaeledward is a graduate of Agawam High School and Westfield State College in Massachusetts.
> michaeledward worked in Massachusetts, and paid taxes in Massachusetts from 1980 through 1997.
> michaeledward voted in Massachusetts throughout the 80's and 90's, until he moved to New Hampshire to marry is wonderful wife.


 The fact that you spent many years as a resident and voter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts means nothing. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and it seems you are quite well informed. However, the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of this state are accountable to the people who live here and fund _*our*_ government via our taxes, and only to us. Unless you count yourself as a resident, or are otherwise contributing to the funding of the state government, you have no standing. You don't have a dog in this fight. I am a resident now, the fact that I have been for my entire life has no bearing, only that I am now. I have standing.


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court *has not* legislated from the bench.


You can say whatever you want, in whatever typeface, font size, bold and italicize it, but it doesn't make it true. It is your opinion, and to me it is irrelevant (see the previous paragraph).


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 28, 2005)

_*Moderator's note:*_

Gentlemen there have already been some moderator warnings on this thread.

Review the sniping policy, step back and catch your breath and consider taking personal, one-on-one matters to PMs so that this thread may be productive.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 28, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> I wanted to clear up a few points to which I didn't respond during last evening repartee, addressing these issues:
> The fact that you spent many years as a resident and voter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts means nothing. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and it seems you are quite well informed. However, the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of this state are accountable to the people who live here and fund _*our*_ government via our taxes, and only to us. Unless you count yourself as a resident, or are otherwise contributing to the funding of the state government, you have no standing. You don't have a dog in this fight. I am a resident now, the fact that I have been for my entire life has no bearing, only that I am now. I have standing.


 


			
				Mark L said:
			
		

> michaeledward has no standing in Massachusetts, as his bio indicates NH as his location.


 
If you want to argue about standing, I would point out that this forum is not a legal setting. All are welcome (as I understand it) to voice opinions. 

My concern toward this issue is that I have family members that are gay.


----------



## Kane (Dec 28, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Kane, you didn't answer my questions, but skirted around them like a polititian.
> Do you have an answer to the specifics?
> 
> I don't want to see my taxes going for this battle. I would rather see my courts dealing with issues like murderers, rapists etc, not refighting the last thousand years worth of rights for couples. But, I sincerely hope that any state that does so has it's courts so backed up with civil rights cases and it's coffers bled dry from the costs of trying to justify an outdated and seperatist policy.



  No matter how you want to solve this issue it will take tax money;

1. It will take tax money to make homosexual "marriage" legal.

2. It will take tax money to take the word "marriage" out of government programs.

3. It would take tax money to set up a new institution for homosexual unions called a different name but equal (ie Garriage, Homunion, ect.)

4. It will take tax money to ban homosexual "marriage" via constitutional amendment.

If you believe we should pay no tax money for such issues why was it one of your political platforms for the 2004 election ? If you care only about tax money only going to murderers and rapists instead of solving civil rights dilemmas, why bother to take a stance on the issue at all?

Judging by your replies you would be willing to pay only if we solved this issue using option 1. Someone of opposite view point would only be willing to pay for option 4.

So what is your point? No one wants to pay tax money for something they don't support.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2005)

Let me put it this way...
I see expanding the coverage to be less expensive, more inclusive, and the correct thing to do. As I will possibly be running for real in 2008, it will be a major part of my platform. The constitution should be about protecting and expanding rights, not restricting them due to outdated beliefs or the "morals" of a particular religion. One of my faiths for example have been blessing same-sex relationships for years. For examples of how to do this as painlessly as possible, I look at the Canadian solution as a good starting point. Allow it on the government level, let religion handle it seperately.


----------



## Shu2jack (Dec 29, 2005)

Out of curosity, how does getting married work? I know you need a marriage liscense, but what more do you need? Do you require a judge or priest to "marry" you or if you just sign the contract you are "married"?

If getting married works how I think it works, why not just allow homo and hetro sexuals to get and sign a marriage liscense while leaving it up to each individual church as to whether or not they will hold a religious ceremony for ANY couple?

To me this would allow all couples the opportunity to get married, equal benefits, and allow churches to retain their beliefs on gay marriage. While I am for gay marriage, I don't like the idea of government telling churches what to believe and regardless of what any person thinks, homosexuals would be legally married with all benefits.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 29, 2005)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> Out of curosity, how does getting married work? I know you need a marriage liscense, but what more do you need? Do you require a judge or priest to "marry" you or if you just sign the contract you are "married"?
> 
> If getting married works how I think it works, why not just allow homo and hetro sexuals to get and sign a marriage liscense while leaving it up to each individual church as to whether or not they will hold a religious ceremony for ANY couple?
> 
> To me this would allow all couples the opportunity to get married, equal benefits, and allow churches to retain their beliefs on gay marriage. While I am for gay marriage, I don't like the idea of government telling churches what to believe and regardless of what any person thinks, homosexuals would be legally married with all benefits.


Thats pretty much it.

You get a licence, then either do a simple civil ceremony, or the big church bash. I believe the priest must have a permit from the locality to officiate.

You and I are in agreement on the other 2 sections of your post. :asian:


----------



## Kane (Dec 29, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Let me put it this way...
> I see expanding the coverage to be less expensive, more inclusive, and the correct thing to do. As I will possibly be running for real in 2008, it will be a major part of my platform. The constitution should be about protecting and expanding rights, not restricting them due to outdated beliefs or the "morals" of a particular religion. One of my faiths for example have been blessing same-sex relationships for years. For examples of how to do this as painlessly as possible, I look at the Canadian solution as a good starting point. Allow it on the government level, let religion handle it seperately.



Yes I agree that the constitution should protect and expand people's rights. My solution does this the most .

So what part would you run for if you were to run 2008?


----------



## Cujo (Dec 29, 2005)

No matter what the argument, or what your stance, you can never legislate belief. No matter what the law, somebody will be unhappy! Any time you make a law, you impose a restriction on someone else. What you beleive is right, someone else will believe is wrong. In the end we all lose a little.

Pax
Cujo


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2005)

Cujo said:
			
		

> No matter what the argument, or what your stance, you can never legislate belief. No matter what the law, somebody will be unhappy! Any time you make a law, you impose a restriction on someone else. What you beleive is right, someone else will believe is wrong. In the end we all lose a little.
> 
> Pax
> Cujo


 
There is much truth in this statement. I am wondering, however, what 'restriction' is imposed on others by allowing same-sex couples to marry?


----------



## Cujo (Dec 29, 2005)

The only restriction imposed is that there are others that will feel that this freedom is against their beliefs and therefore, they will be offended by this freedom.

Pax
Cujo


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2005)

Does their being 'offended' create any 'restriction'? 

Is one so offended, prohibited from any action?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 29, 2005)

Kane,
  President. No real chance to win (that whole cash poor and integrity rich thing), but I can make alot o noise. 

Michael, 
  Wouldn't you say that if the ultra-offended don't like giving true equality, that they could just, say, move?  WOuldn't that be ironic? After years of forcing others to uproot, move, and hide, that the shoe might someday, be on their feet?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Michael,
> Wouldn't you say that if the ultra-offended don't like giving true equality, that they could just, say, move? WOuldn't that be ironic? After years of forcing others to uproot, move, and hide, that the shoe might someday, be on their feet?


 
That was certainly the position that President Reagan took. Citizens could vote with their feet. In fact, that was the position candidate Bush took in 1999 and 2000. 

However, and despite the DOMA act, there is a section of the Constitution that guarantees (if I recall) Full Faith and Credit. As I understand it, what one state says is legal, all states must accept. This is a big sticky-wicket in the 'States Rights' argument among conservatives. 

I have two thoughts on this (maybe more) ... 

first, the whole gay marriage fight is a carnival barker, distracting us from what is really going on in the country. As the pulpits around the country are winding up the masses over gay marriage, Industry is taking control of the Republic and transforming into a Fascist state. 

second, those faithful that truly feel that same-sex marriage is wrong, will do as one of the great teachers in history had done ... pick-up a stick and draw on the ground... they will recognize that it is not correct in their God's eyes, but the final judgement is not theirs to make.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 30, 2005)

I agree the homosexual marriage issue is a distraction from more pressing needs. Whether it is an intentional political manipulation on behalf of the government to move our attention elsewhere is hard to say. I would suspect politicians are pandering to their constituents more than anything.

But it is a distraction still, and reflective of the "Chicken Little" mentality I've mentioned elsewhere on MartialTalk. As a people we tend to look for imaginary disasters in the offing and misplaced causes for ills. 

To some...indeed to a great many...homosexual marriage will cause our nation to slide into the horrors of bestiality and pedophilia. Video games will turn our children into soul-less killers. Erotica is--even now--driving our men out of control and inducing them to rape. Marijuana is THE gateway drug. 

All of these absurd allegations can be found on both conservative and liberal web sites, and the data supporting the claims is weak...if not non-existent.

And this silliness goes on in spite of public issues that stand out and in need of address.

In time the issue of homosexual marriage will be a moot point, and we will have Gays married in a number of states, if not nation-wide. If we live long enough, we will see that these fears were unfounded. The rate of homosexual behavior will more than likely stay stable at about 4% of the general population. 

But Chicken Little doesn't die easily...and we will find something else to wring our hands over, and for which to tear out our hair.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 30, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is much truth in this statement. I am wondering, however, what 'restriction' is imposed on others by allowing same-sex couples to marry?


 Probably the same restrictions the ACLU applies to being offended at crosses built at World War I memorials....that being that being offended is equal to being injured.  Can't have it both ways, either everyone has the right to NOT be offended, or no one has that right.

Personally, I think homosexual marriage should be legal AND World War I memorial crosses should be left where they have been for 70 years, even IF that land suddenly became government land.  I think the offended be damned in either case.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 30, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> That was certainly the position that President Reagan took. Citizens could vote with their feet. In fact, that was the position candidate Bush took in 1999 and 2000.
> 
> However, and despite the DOMA act, there is a section of the Constitution that guarantees (if I recall) Full Faith and Credit. As I understand it, what one state says is legal, all states must accept. This is a big sticky-wicket in the 'States Rights' argument among conservatives.
> 
> ...


 Yes, it's a huge conspiracy...lol :erg:  (Kind of like the pro-gay marriage issue is a huge conspiracy to shore up political support among certain core constituents...conspiracy theories cut both ways).

Can't simply ever accept the fact that someone could legitimately disagree with you, and it not be a conspiracy?  The fact is that many people legitimately believe in a god that condemns homosexuality as evil. What's more, they legitimately believe that god destroys nations for what he perceives as 'wickedness'.  Do I believe that?  No, and it doesn't matter, because millions of Americans do.

Now, you can condemn them as being superstitious, but that's not the same things as some organized conspiracy to spread 'fascist industry'.  It's just a way of dismissing the whole issue, without dealing with it for what it is.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Can't simply ever accept the fact that someone could legitimately disagree with you, and it not be a conspiracy? The fact is that many people legitimately believe in a god that condemns homosexuality as evil. What's more, they legitimately believe that god destroys nations for what he perceives as 'wickedness'. Do I believe that? No, and it doesn't matter, because millions of Americans do.


 
That smacks of relativism.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 30, 2005)

I would just ask sgtmac_46 "What Would Jesus Do?"  

(I am probably not the first person to come up with that sentence ... it is awfully clever, somebody else must've thought of it by now.)

I would point out two things; 

That being a 'conspiracy' and people believing 'God ... condemns homosexuality' *are not *mutually exclusive. 

And ... 

Please do not think that I, in any way, condemn people of faith as being superstitious. I know many people draw a great deal of strength, comfort and community from religion. I fully support people who choose that path. 

That is not in any way in conflict with my fairly commonly stated position as an athiest. I spent a good deal of my life within organized religion. I am a recovering alcoholic, which demands faith in a higher power commonly referred to as God. 

Hopefully, all will note the actions I would ask those believers who fear God's wrath on our country because of homosexuality ... that they follow the teaching of Joshua, son of Joseph ... whom is commonly called Jesus.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Dec 31, 2005)

Have you Americans ever considered just setting aside some desolate, worn out land, and tried relocating them all there? Let them make their own laws and such like you did with your indians? You had your internment camps, and your reservations, why not create a homosexual reservation as well? Seems right up your old alleys, I would think.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 31, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Probably the same restrictions the ACLU applies to being offended at crosses built at World War I memorials....that being that being offended is equal to being injured. Can't have it both ways, either everyone has the right to NOT be offended, or no one has that right.
> 
> Personally, I think homosexual marriage should be legal AND World War I memorial crosses should be left where they have been for 70 years, even IF that land suddenly became government land. I think the offended be damned in either case.



While I have argued for the removal of God from our money and from our oaths of office and such, I never said to destroy any existing documents, and I agree that the crosses in place you be allowed to remain as well as any other symbols of faith that might be there.


----------



## Shu2jack (Dec 31, 2005)

> Have you Americans ever considered just setting aside some desolate, worn out land, and tried relocating them all there? Let them make their own laws and such like you did with your indians? You had your internment camps, and your reservations, why not create a homosexual reservation as well? Seems right up your old alleys, I would think.


 
Right, because the United Kingdom, in it's long and glorious history, has done no wrong what so ever.

Really, I feel your post is uncalled for.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Dec 31, 2005)

The subject sir, is the status of a group of individuals, and their rights in your great land of freedom. You are the nation which is currently leading the crusade to bring Democracy to the world. One would expect that the nation which professes "Liberty and Justice for All", would be able to live up to that. Your history however is such that you place those groups into little "camps". You put your indians on reservations, you put Japanese into camps, you round up and send your arabs to camps. Why not do the same with your duckies? Seems a right American thing to do.

The sins of the United Kingdom and our brilliant leadership is not really fit for this topic, I would say.


----------



## Shu2jack (Dec 31, 2005)

> The subject sir, is the status of a group of individuals, and their rights in your great land of freedom. You are the nation which is currently leading the crusade to bring Democracy to the world. One would expect that the nation which professes "Liberty and Justice for All", would be able to live up to that. Your history however is such that you place those groups into little "camps". You put your indians on reservations, you put Japanese into camps, you round up and send your arabs to camps. Why not do the same with your duckies? Seems a right American thing to do.
> 
> The sins of the United Kingdom and our brilliant leadership is not really fit for this topic, I would say.


 
I'm not defending the United State's past actions. Our current generation is not, and should not be, limited to the actions and sins of our forefathers. Implying we should just repeat our sins to "solve" our problem and implying that we as a whole are keen on such an idea is not very productive to this discussion and does not add anything to it. Unless you have anything of value to add to the conversation, I ask that you refrain from posting in it.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Dec 31, 2005)

I merely point out an option that hasn't been broached yet here, and it is one that it seems a few would at least support. It "moves them away" as seems preferred. They can of course come here, where same-sex partnerships are legal and protected by law, as of this month I believe. Really, you Americans are quite behind the times. Join us in the 21st century won't you?

BBC Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4493094.stm

Now, I have to go pick out a gift. My cousin is planning his wedding. Nice chaps, rather good rugby players.


----------



## Shu2jack (Dec 31, 2005)

> Really, you Americans are quite behind the times. Join us in the 21st century won't you?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 31, 2005)

It's a valid point.  While the US is trying to legislate against same-gender marriages, Spain, Canada, New Zealand and the UK are legalizing them, and passing laws to protect them.  In fact, much of Europe seems to be going or has gone towards legalizing and protecting them though there still remains much to reach true equality. Seems that we're going backwards here in the US.


----------



## Shu2jack (Dec 31, 2005)

I was more taken to his attitude rather than the fact that the U.K. is legalizing gay marriage.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 31, 2005)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> The subject sir, is the status of a group of individuals, and their rights in your great land of freedom. You are the nation which is currently leading the crusade to bring Democracy to the world. One would expect that the nation which professes "Liberty and Justice for All", would be able to live up to that. Your history however is such that you place those groups into little "camps". You put your indians on reservations, you put Japanese into camps, you round up and send your arabs to camps. Why not do the same with your duckies? Seems a right American thing to do.
> 
> The sins of the United Kingdom and our brilliant leadership is not really fit for this topic, I would say.


 It's a bit disingenuous to equate a legitimate discussion about whether homosexual marriage even constitutes anything resembling a right, with segregation and concentration camps...It's hyperbolic, it's fallacious, and it's quite frankly a little pretentious.

What's more, just calling marriage a 'right' is not the same as it BEING a right.  I want a right to free cable...it doesn't make it so.  Homosexuals of late have decided to petition the government for the right to engage in a contract to 'marry'.  Some states, and their residents, have decided that there exists no right to marry, and have decided to refuse to grant the request to expand the definition of marriage.  However, again, that's far from putting homosexuals 'on an island'. 

I frankly am not concerned about legalized gay marriage, however, some have some issues with it being portrayed as some necessary right.  I'm sure civil unions for homosexuals will ultimately be legal in all 50 states, and maybe rightfully so.  However, that's far from the belief that just because Europe does it, that it's the true path to enlightenment.   I think it might be that attitude that he was referring to.

As far as 'our history' being checkered, this is quite humorous come from a European.  Considering that much of the crimes of humanity in the last 400 years has been a direct result of European imperialism and, specifically, British imperialism.  From India, to the Atlantic Slave trade, the United Kingdom has engaged in more acts of barbarity than they could ever accuse us of.  Keep in mind that the UK was responsible for MOST of the slaves brought to the New World during the Atlantic slave trade.

So as far as your assertion that the history of the US is the topic, you altered that when you started quoting, chapter and verse, all the sins of our past.  If that is the topic, then it sounds like you broadened the issue from the original narrow discussion of simply homosexual marriage, right or not. 

As for 'muslims in prison camps', thats ironic considering that Great Britain kept large sections of the Islamic world under it's gun for over a century.  In fact, it was as much British and other European interference in the Arab world, as anything we have done, that has created much of the problems we see today.  How many native peoples on how many continents were subjugated by her majesties soldiers?  

Before people start quoting the history of the US, they might take a close look at their own.  There's more than enough skelatons in the collective closets to go around.  


What the opposition to the gay marriage issue in the US boils down to is this, and this is a point often ignored, state legislatures, for the most part, didn't push amendments to block gay marriage.  Voters voted on ballot issues in several states, direct democracy in action.  They decided, collectively, that they didn't desire to expand the definition of marriage to encompass homosexuals.  Well, that's all well and good.  Many folks give lip service to democracy, until voters do something they don't like.  Then they talk about the right thing to do being to go against the will of the voters.  Then they seek a way to enforce their will on the majority, and start coming up with hyperbolic instances in history when the 'people' were wrong...as justification for subverting the will of the people.  

Again, I always find it ironic how positions on democracy flip flop depending on whether the voters are with you or against you on a given issue.  The same person who, on a different topic, might say 'The will of the people should be the deciding factor' then switch and say 'sometimes we need to do the right thing, despite the will of the people'....to which I always ask, right thing based on who's judgement, theirs?

Whatever we think about states passing anti-gay marriage legislation, it is NOT tantamount to concentration camps, and is also not based on some dictatorial mindset....it is what the majority of collective citizens of that decided was going to be their states stance.  Like it or hate it, it's their RIGHT as citizens to make those decisions.


----------



## Shu2jack (Dec 31, 2005)

sgtmac_46,

Thank you. You articulated why I didn't care for Edmund BlackAdder's posts much better than I did.

Something I did want to bring up in your post though,



> Again, I always find it ironic how positions on democracy flip flop depending on whether the voters are with you or against you on a given issue. The same person who, on a different topic, might say 'The will of the people should be the deciding factor' then switch and say 'sometimes we need to do the right thing, despite the will of the people'....to which I always ask, right thing based on who's judgement, theirs?
> 
> Whatever we think about states passing anti-gay marriage legislation, it is NOT tantamount to concentration camps, and is also not based on some dictatorial mindset....it is what the majority of collective citizens of that decided was going to be their states stance. Like it or hate it, it's their RIGHT as citizens to make those decisions.


 
I agree that a lot of peoples' position on democracy tend to change depending on the situation and how the voting turned out for their position. 

I personally believe that the will of the majority should be followed, but I have a hard time swallowing that for every situation. At one time the voting majority didn't like the idea of blacks have equal rights or going sharing public schools with whites. Where does one draw the line between majority rule and overruling the majority? It was once mentioned that humans have certain unalienable rights.

It could be argued that some states simply voted against expanding the definition of marriage and that majority rule should be followed. On the other hand, isn't marriage one of those rights that should not be denied to the "average" person? I don't know if it the right of the citizens to make the decisions to deny others certain rights.

Sorry if my ideas are kind of fuzzy. Been up many hours with very little sleep.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 31, 2005)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> sgtmac_46,
> 
> Thank you. You articulated why I didn't care for Edmund BlackAdder's posts much better than I did.
> 
> ...


 And i'm not dismissing that argument, merely pointing out an obvious problem...Who decides when the will of the people is 'wrong'?  We all disagree with the will of the majority from time to time.  Does that mean that we simply do whatever is necessary to invoke our view on the majority?  Isn't that what dictator's do?  Many of them also did it for the same reasons, i.e. they believed it was the right thing, despite the people's views (especially in the name of communism).  

I merely ask who appoints themselves as the person who decides when the people are and are not correct in their decisions.  

What's more, I haven't heard a decent argument describing marriage as an absolute right.  Some want to make it a right, that's a far cry from it being so.  Is it necessary to be married to pursue happiness?  Some would claim just the opposite is true.  

Either way, I find it hard to believe that marriage is some sort of absolute right.  Irregardless, I feel that if homosexuals want to engage in marriage, personally I have no problem with it.  Many voters disagree.  I just dispute that it's a forgone conclusion that marriage is an absolute human right.  

We throw the word 'right' around a little too easily.  It seems to simply have become a word to describe anything we just decided we 'wanted to do' but can't....so now we'll call it a right and demand it.  That's a little different from a slave demanding his physical freedom, or someone oppressed, demanding a right to education and self-determination.   

It seems that since we have fought and won against socieities greatest evils, we are picking progressively more and more trivial battles and calling it a 'crusade for human rights'.  Anything we suddenly want to change about society, becomes the next great evil to be defeated.   It's gotten to the point where the 'rights' being demanded are complete fabrications.  I say allow gay marriage, but lets not assume it's anywhere close to an absolute human rights issue.


That having been said, if two people, regardless of their sex, race, religion, or sitcom preference, believe (usually mistakenly) that marriage will somehow enrich their lives and bring them happiness, more power to them.  As I said in a past post, I voted against the ballot issue in my state to restrict gay marriage, not because I believed it was an absolute human right, but because I felt if they wanted to ruin their lives, let them.  I believe homosexuals shouldn't be immune from the living hell that can be marriage.   Once they reach their 3rd or 4th marriage, then they will see that marriage is NOT a human right, it can, in fact be, down right INhuman.  Marriage...It's not a word, it's a sentence.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 31, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> While I have argued for the removal of God from our money and from our oaths of office and such, I never said to destroy any existing documents, and I agree that the crosses in place you be allowed to remain as well as any other symbols of faith that might be there.


 
There have been many who have fought from other faiths. So, I would imagine there would need to be Crecents and six point stars in those memorials tooo.

Over the past year, there was a populat country song about a soldier dying and being buried at Arlington National Cemetary. One of the lyrics mentions 'crosses'. It may be poetic license. Or it may be ignorance. There are no crosses are Arlington.

There is reportedly a quote from Vice President Cheney (who served as secretary of defense in Bush I) about being 'row upon row' of crosses Arlington.

Might not religious symbols in National Memorials lead itself to a Theocratic government?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 31, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I merely ask who appoints themselves as the person who decides when the people are and are not correct in their decisions.


 
I think, that the cheif executive appoints the *judges* who decide when the voters may have made a wrong choice in protecting fellow citizens. It was the courts that de-segregated the schools, wasn't it?

Some states also elect judges don't they? Are there any State Supreme Courts that have elected officials? I get so confused about when a judge is being 'Activist', and when they are performing their jobs.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What's more, I haven't heard a decent argument describing marriage as an absolute right. Some want to make it a right, that's a far cry from it being so.


 
I am wondering why a couple that commits themselves to each other are not allowed to file a joint tax return. That is an absolute right of a married couple, isn't it? Social Security survivor benefits, that a right too, isn't it? 

These arguments have been made, and many say 'civil unions' which codify all of those rights are the same thing as marriage, and gay people should be satisfied with that.

I have argued that marriage is more than just the 'rights' associated with it. It is difficult to define the 'intangivles' (Rumsfelds "unknown unknowns") of marriage, but certainly, you won't deny that there are intangible benefits to marriage?

So, if you "haven't heard" a decent argument for same-sex marriage, please help me understand why this argument does not meet that standard? I'm not asking you to agree with it, just why is it not a 'decent argument'? Is it unfair? Is the premise false?

Curiously?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 31, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There have been many who have fought from other faiths. So, I would imagine there would need to be Crecents and six point stars in those memorials tooo.
> 
> Over the past year, there was a populat country song about a soldier dying and being buried at Arlington National Cemetary. One of the lyrics mentions 'crosses'. It may be poetic license. Or it may be ignorance. There are no crosses are Arlington.
> 
> ...


 Sorry, you may have missed the point.  The cross in question was erected 70 years ago, at a time when it was private land, to honor world war one dead from that area.  

The idiotic position the ACLU takes, that offense is tantamount to damage, is offensive in itself.  It need not be necessary to represent EVERY religion on the planet, at a site where a cross was originally erected, in order to appease any group who decides to assert themselves because they've decided to be offended that day.

By this logic, if the federal government acquires a piece of land with a historical church on it, it should either tear it down, or construct a church or place of worship representing every religion and interest group on the planet.  It's idiotic.  We need to stop assuming that everytime some individual is offended, that we should pander to their desires.  I wouldn't make any different claim if this cross was, say, a buddhist shrine that the courts demanded be removed...but I strangely suspect you might.  

It is nothing but pre-text on the part of the ACLU anyway, and I, for one, will be glad to see them restricted from being awarded attorney's fees in these kind of cases, when the legislation goes through.  If they are so altruistic in their motives, then they won't mind doing these sort of cases for free.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 31, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think, that the cheif executive appoints the *judges* who decide when the voters may have made a wrong choice in protecting fellow citizens. It was the courts that de-segregated the schools, wasn't it?


 Ah, appeal to legislation from the bench.  And it is the people who elects the chief executive who appoints the judges.  Again, we come back to the will of the people.  And if the judges disagree with you, who do you appeal to?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Some states also elect judges don't they? Are there any State Supreme Courts that have elected officials? I get so confused about when a judge is being 'Activist', and when they are performing their jobs.


 Well, allow me to alleviate your confusion.  They are doing their job, when they follow a narrow interpretation of the constitution.  It is the job of legislatures to legislate, not the job of judges.  The idea of a 'living constitution' as activist judges define it, is nothing more than the subversion of the will of the people.  You might justify it from time to time as a necessary evil, for a greater good....but, then all tyrants justify their actions as necessary.  I'm merely pointing out that one shouldn't get to comfortable just arbitrarily subverting the will of the people for any triffle they decide to label 'a right' for simply that purpose.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am wondering why a couple that commits themselves to each other are not allowed to file a joint tax return. That is an absolute right of a married couple, isn't it? Social Security survivor benefits, that a right too, isn't it?


 Filing taxes is a 'right'?  Again, I think you've gone a little loopy with defining every little thing as a 'right'.  Many things are simply priveleges.  Driving, for example, is a privelege, but many assume it is a 'right' simply because they want to do it.  If marriage was a right, then the other party wouldn't be able to divorce you, would they.  If they divorced you, they'd be violating your 'right' to be married.  Sorry, doesn't wash.  No one has a right to be married, otherwise your rights would be violated any time someone turned down your proposal. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> These arguments have been made, and many say 'civil unions' which codify all of those rights are the same thing as marriage, and gay people should be satisfied with that.


 Satisfied or not, it's not a rights issue.  It's an issue for the people to decide.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I have argued that marriage is more than just the 'rights' associated with it. It is difficult to define the 'intangivles' (Rumsfelds "unknown unknowns") of marriage, but certainly, you won't deny that there are intangible benefits to marriage?


 Intangible benefits do not equal 'a right'.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, if you "haven't heard" a decent argument for same-sex marriage, please help me understand why this argument does not meet that standard? I'm not asking you to agree with it, just why is it not a 'decent argument'? Is it unfair? Is the premise false?
> Curiously?


 It's a false premise, it's predicated on the belief that marriage is a right, which it is not.  If you are demanding that the privelege of marriage be extended to homosexuals, then I, personally, would extend that support to extend the privelege of marriage to homosexuals.  However, casting this as a human rights issue is really rather petty, given the history of REAL rights issues.  


I'll vote for it, but not because I believe it's about absolute human rights.  
It's because if it makes them happy, let them have it.  It doesn't really harm anything.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 31, 2005)

OK .. I got it.

Brown v Board of Education was *legislating from the bench.*

Bring back segregated schools.


----------



## Ray (Dec 31, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Filing taxes is a 'right'? Again, I think you've gone a little loopy with defining every little thing as a 'right'. Many things are simply priveleges. Driving, for example, is a privelege, but many assume it is a 'right' simply because they want to do it. If marriage was a right, then the other party wouldn't be able to divorce you, would they. If they divorced you, they'd be violating your 'right' to be married. Sorry, doesn't wash. No one has a right to be married, otherwise your rights would be violated any time someone turned down your proposal.


That's an interesting arguement...I can't tell if it holds water or not, but if I use some analogies then I come to the conclusion that marriage is a right.  But, of course, the right to marry would have restrictions as do other rights (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't marry a poodle no matter how cute it is).

Here's an anology:  there is "freedom of the press," right?  Just because I want to have my views printed, the local paper is under no compulsion to print my views (the anology is to "your rights would be violated any time someone turned down your proposal").  

I also have a "freedom of speech."  But if someone refuses to listen to me, they are not violating my freedom of speech; that is another anology to "your rights would be violated any time someone turned down your proposal").

I also have a right to vote.  I can vote for whoever I want to...I can literally vote for someone who is legally incapable of holding the office (voting for a foreign born govenor of California for president, for example)...I can vote for someone who's not interested in the job (like James Brolin)...They are not required to take office just because I vote for them ("your rights would be violated any time someone turned down your proposal").

Oh yes, and if I do vote for someone and they do take the office but later decide to resign then they haven't violated my right to vote.  That's my anology to "if they divorced you, they'd be violating your 'right' to be married."

Marriage, as a social institution, is defined by society.  If our society legalizes homosexual marriages {which I'm opposed to} then it'll be just like other things that are legal that I'm opposed to.  Marriage as a right, should be limited to marriage between a man and a woman {and includes some restrictions, not limited to incest, age restrictions, etc}.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 31, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Intangible benefits do not equal 'a right'.
> 
> It's a false premise, it's predicated on the belief that marriage is a right, which it is not. If you are demanding that the privelege of marriage be extended to homosexuals, then I, personally, would extend that support to extend the privelege of marriage to homosexuals. However, casting this as a human rights issue is really rather petty, given the history of REAL rights issues.



On the contrary, the 9th and 10th Amendment state:

*Amendment IX*


_ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._ 

*Amendment X*


_ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people._



 The Supreme Court has taken the stance--in deference to these articles, as well as the others concerning equal protections--that there have to be compelling reasons for the restriction of a freedom. One could argue that there is no right to homosexual sex, yet in 2003 the Court ruled that there wasn't sound reason for restricting that freedom. 


In short, there are (and were in the 18th century) far too many rights to be outlined in the Constitution--or ANY Constitution. No legislature has the time or the omniscience to anticipate every single conceivable right. The Constitution doesn't grant us the right to have a child; play or own rock music; pick our noses in the privacy of our own homes; or have consensual--if slightly deviant sex--with our spouses. It doesn't restrict our hemlines; mandate our hair length; dictate how we color coordinate our clothes. These freedoms are taken as given...and any threat of infringement on those freedoms has to meet a test of Constitutionality. It is the restriciton of the freedom that meets the test--not the allowance of it.


The Constitution and its judicial interpretation is intended to enumerate rights and restrict the powers of government. It wasn't drafted to handcuff us. The one great limiting amendment was the 19th, prohibition, and as we all know it was overturned. All others either extend the freedom of the people or delineate the governments role.



 If we don't like something or are offended by it, we have a tool to fight it: The power of the frown. Public censure can be far more effective than passing a Constitutional amendment...and it insures the safety of that ideal the Constitution serves: Liberty.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Mark L (Dec 31, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> It's a valid point. While the US is trying to legislate against same-gender marriages, Spain, Canada, New Zealand and the UK are legalizing them, and passing laws to protect them. In fact, much of Europe seems to be going or has gone towards legalizing and protecting them though there still remains much to reach true equality. Seems that we're going backwards here in the US.


 I reject it as a valid point. The current topic aside, do you truly believe that we should base our laws, rights, and constitution on what other countries have done? I loath that notion. There are sufficient governments on the planet that we could identify a few that might support virtually any agenda. Should we look to N. Korea, Iran, and Burma when considering the rights if the individual? 

I am quite capable of forming my own opinion, and casting my vote for those with similar beliefs. The citizenry of the US represented by our elected officals and their appointees defines who and what we are (for better or worse), not the actions of foreign governments. I suspect that Spaniards, Canadians, New Zealanders, and Brits feel much the same about who should and should not influence the making of their laws.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 31, 2005)

You've also got a valid point there Mark. Mine was that the free world appears to be moving in 1 direction, while we are moving in another. As the self proclaimed leader of the free world. one would expect us in front, not in back. Looking towards nations not considered 'free' (ie: Iran) isn't a valid comparison. Australia or Germany might be though. Personally, I think it would be rather poor form if the US was the last democracy to legalize and protect ssm.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 31, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> I reject it as a valid point. The current topic aside, do you truly believe that we should base our laws, rights, and constitution on what other countries have done? I loath that notion. There are sufficient governments on the planet that we could identify a few that might support virtually any agenda. Should we look to N. Korea, Iran, and Burma when considering the rights if the individual?




Should we base our laws, rights and Constitution on what other countries have done?

_We allready have.

_Take as precedent that our law is taken from English common law (except for Louisiana, whose law is pluralistic and heavily French); Spanish civil law influenced civil law in California; New York's civil law system has roots in Dutch civil law and whose remnants remain in the system today.

Our government is based on models found in ancient Greece, the Roman republic, and the British parlimentary system; our political theories born of the ideals propogated in the Scotland, Britain, and France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  We did not, ever, draft our government and our laws on a clean slate.  

Note too we currently are establishing a European legal and parlimentary system in Iraq.  We are not using a U.S. model of democracy.  The powers in Washington apparently do not share your distaste for European-style democratic government.  One would think we'd be more Amero-centric if our laws were superior to those found in the rest of western culture.

As for looking for the rights of the individual in the countries you've mentioned, observe too that we openly trade with a number of countries that are in flagrant violation of the very principles of democracy we espouse.  If we are going to arrogate ourselves, ought we not do it fully and turn our noses up at those who don't follow American ideals?

Or, perhaps, we might look elsewhere for good ideas--which has always been a strong American tradition--adopt them and synthesize them so as to better our people.  I think that those countries that gave us Locke, Hume and Voltaire are probably still capable of giving us a good idea or two.  We, as we tend to do, can take those ideas and make them come alive as no other nation can.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Dec 31, 2005)

Sgt. Mac
 We are well aware of our own past transgressions here, having both a free press and established institutions of higher learning that are older than your nation. Your little revolt a few centuries back resulted in a setback in rights a freedoms in your experiment in democracy. Unlike you, we did not have to fight a war to free slaves, our own having been manumitted some 30 to 40 years prior to your little internal squabble. But that is not the topic of this discussion is it?

My point was that in the past and still today you a slicing your population apart into little groups. Some go into camps, some to special neighbourhoods, others onto reservations. All of this in exact opposition to the laws and publically stated beliefs on which your grand nation was purported to have been founded on. This "melting pot" I believe you called it. 

You can do with your ducks what you like. My only point is, while you are sliding backwards the rest of us are moving forward, and they will be increasingly welcomed world wide. Your own leader has sought to restrict rights and privileges, in exact opposition to the charter of your nation. You wonder why your nation has to resort to strength of arms to gain respect amongst it's peers. Might I suggest this may be one reason? Good day Gentlemen.


----------



## Mark L (Dec 31, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> .Mine was that the free world appears to be moving in 1 direction, while we are moving in another. As the self proclaimed leader of the free world. one would expect us in front, not in back. Looking towards nations not considered 'free' (ie: Iran) isn't a valid comparison. Australia or Germany might be though. Personally, I think it would be rather poor form if the US was the last democracy to legalize and protect ssm.


Agreed. I am uncomfortable with the projection of ourselves as the "leader of the free world", althought the past 100 years or so would prove it to be true. I hope it isn't perceived as arrogance, but I believe that we do possess the raw materials (a broad base of ideas encompassing myriad points of view on any given subject, and the eloquence to convey them) and processes by which we can come to a true and just conclusion that support the majority and protect the minority. I would aspire to lead by example, if others happen to get there first, cool! If they are correct, we will join them there, too. 

I guess the current problem is that the processes part of the equation seems to be busted. It will work, but it is bogged down. It takes too much time, there is too much circumvention, and too many special interest groups and political in-fighting. The will of the people isn't being heard loudly or quickly enough. Referencing your other thread, maybe this could be a topic for debate in '06.


----------



## Mark L (Dec 31, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Should we base our laws, rights and Constitution on what other countries have done?
> 
> _We allready have.
> 
> ...


You are, of course, correct. My contention is that we should not follow other countries actions blindly. I do not wish to have law made here simply and solely because it has been enacted elsewhere.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 31, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> You are, of course, correct. My contention is that we should not follow other countries actions blindly. I do not wish to have law made here simply and solely because it has been enacted elsewhere.


I agree. Doing just because they did isn't right. However, when a growing number of our peer nations do something I think it should be examined and "brought home" if you will. Our culture is different, so a "copy" wouldn't fit, however intent and key points might. This is my opinion in a lot of areas, not just this one.


----------



## Mark L (Dec 31, 2005)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Sgt. Mac
> We are well aware of our own past transgressions here, having both a free press and established institutions of higher learning that are older than your nation. Your little revolt a few centuries back resulted in a setback in rights a freedoms in your experiment in democracy. Unlike you, we did not have to fight a war to free slaves, our own having been manumitted some 30 to 40 years prior to your little internal squabble. But that is not the topic of this discussion is it?


I would not characterize either of the events as little, would you?  You read, at least to me, as if this are trivial events.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 31, 2005)

Mark, Ever read American history from the British side? Our "revolution" is seen as a "revolt", and our "Civil War" was mocked as a failure in our "experiment in democracy" according to a friend of mine. Was a decade past, we had a chat about cultural differences. You have to remember history varies based on perspective.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 31, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Mark, Ever read American history from the British side? Our "revolution" is seen as a "revolt".


A Few Bloody Noses is a good accounting of the Revolutionary war from the British perspective. 

A few points it raises are, that the other British colonies were viewed as far more important as they were the ones with the wealth to be easily had. The NA colonies were viewed as a backwater as they had little economic impact. At the time of the revolution, British interests were more tied up in trying to retain their imperialist stakes in the wealthy colonies first. In a struggle for global dominion, the NA colonies didn't rate very highly on anyone's list outside of George III.

It'd be kinda like Puerto Rico rejecting US "tyranny" while the US is focused on the Middle East and Asia.


----------



## Mark L (Dec 31, 2005)

I have not read an accounting of our Revolutionary or Civil Wars from the British perspective, I expect it would differ from what I've been taught.  My objection was to the pronoun.  "Little" is not a descriptor that I would use, it minimizes the toll extracted upon both sides in both conflicts, regardless of perspective.

This is getting way off topic.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 1, 2006)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *Amendment X*
> 
> 
> _The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people._


 And it is on the state level that this issue has been resolved for the time being....by the voter...i.e. the people.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 1, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Sgt. Mac
> We are well aware of our own past transgressions here, having both a free press and established institutions of higher learning that are older than your nation. Your little revolt a few centuries back resulted in a setback in rights a freedoms in your experiment in democracy. Unlike you, we did not have to fight a war to free slaves, our own having been manumitted some 30 to 40 years prior to your little internal squabble. But that is not the topic of this discussion is it?


You are correct, it's not the topic.  But since you brought it up, it bears pointing out WHY Britain ended the Atlantic Slave trade (Considering it was responsible for importing the bulk of those slaves, the majority of who ended up in the Caribbean to feed Britain's sweet tooth, rather than what became America).

Britain ended the Atlantic Slave trade because it had determined that it was no longer lucrative for Britain, and Britain could stand to gain by denying the French, Dutch and Portugese benefits of the slave trade.  Therefore, Britains sudden 'conscience' was nothing more than another example of Realpolitks.



			
				Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> My point was that in the past and still today you a slicing your population apart into little groups. Some go into camps, some to special neighbourhoods, others onto reservations. All of this in exact opposition to the laws and publically stated beliefs on which your grand nation was purported to have been founded on. This "melting pot" I believe you called it.


 It's obvious you've been paying too much attention to that 'free press' of yours, if you believe we are putting large segments of our population in 'camps'.  The only people in 'camps' are terrorists who were captured in active armed conflict with US and other forces.

The idea that the US is putting large numbers of our population in to camps based on race is pure European paranoid delusions.  I defy you to provide one example.



			
				Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> You can do with your ducks what you like. My only point is, while you are sliding backwards the rest of us are moving forward, and they will be increasingly welcomed world wide. Your own leader has sought to restrict rights and privileges, in exact opposition to the charter of your nation. You wonder why your nation has to resort to strength of arms to gain respect amongst it's peers. Might I suggest this may be one reason? Good day Gentlemen.


 Strength of arms to gain respect from peers?  Who would they be, exactly?  Those same peers who lived under our protection, and grew fat and wealthy by not having to provide their own defense from the soviets AFTER they required drawing us in to another European 'World War'?  Those peers?

That we have an ongoing discussion about whether gay marriage should be a right from state to state is an issue for us to decide.  Most foreign nations are ignorant of the fact that the US does not now, nor never has, spoken entirely as a whole, but instead, represents 50 different views of how governments should be ran.

What's more, it was the individual votes of individual Americans that did it, not the 'President'.  I guess we might be more free if we had a ruling class of elitists to do our thinking and law making entirely for us, without the input of the individual American.  Maybe a group of benevolent despots who can insure that our rights are guarded from ourselves is what we need.  At least thats what the would-be despot elitists think.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 1, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Mark, Ever read American history from the British side? Our "revolution" is seen as a "revolt", and our "Civil War" was mocked as a failure in our "experiment in democracy" according to a friend of mine. Was a decade past, we had a chat about cultural differences. You have to remember history varies based on perspective.


 In another chat I had a UK citizen mocking American belief in personal ownership of firearms and our distrust of government.  He told me that he could perfectly trust his own government, and he wondered why Americans believed they had to own guns to trust ours.  I pointed out that our distrust of government was directly BECAUSE of his government. 


I should point out, however, that i'm not anti-British.  As far as i'm concerned, the British have long been one of the best allies we have in the world (and vice-versa).  

However, the idea that those 'misunderstood' islamic fundamentalists are just mad at the US is pure BS.  Colonialism and Imperialism and their sordid history isn't owned by the US.  Heck, if it hadn't been for those two destructive European wars, the British and French would likely still be fighting their colonial wars with indigenuous peoples.  It wasn't conscience that ended the British Imperial rule, but circumstances.  I'm just pointing out that 'he without sin should cast the first stone' metaphorically speaking. 

As far as the homosexual debate is concerned, it is, again, an issue to be settled by the individual voters of each state.  

Of course, i've meandered off the path a bit.  I'll return to the topic at hand.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Back to the topic.  What I take exception to is NOT gay marriage.....what I take exception to is the torture of the word 'right'.  There is no right to marriage, at least no right to a state endorsed marriage.  If the state decided to get out of the marriage business, no ones rights would be damaged.  State endorsed marriages are a privilege bestowed by the states.

Rights, however, are not given.  What right was granted by the constitution?  That's a trick question.  The constition merely recognized rights people already possessed.  A right is an action that the state may not infringe upon.  An example of this is freedom of assembly.  The state doesn't bestow the freedom of speech upon you, you have it.  The state may not infringe on that right, however.

A privilege is a useful status, however, that the state bestows on you.  Driver's licenses are an example of this.  So are marriage licenses.  That's why you have to request permission from the state to do this thing, because it is a privelege, not a right.  If it were a right, you would not be required to request permission, and the state would not have the right to refuse you.  You would simply do it.  What's more, you have to request that the state change your status on the privelege of marriage.  For example, if you decide you do not want to be married anymore, or want to marry someone else, then you have to petition the court to 'allow' you to change that status....something the court is not REQUIRED to do.  Why? Because it's not a right, it's a privilege, the regulation of which the state reserves for itself.  

Name one RIGHT, guaranteed by the Constitution, that requires a license and permission from the state to engage in.  The only example is firearms ownership, and that is not regulated throughout the entire country.  What's more, it is argued that the licensing therein is a violation of those rights.  What's more, the only reason that licensing is allowed on the part of firearms, is that it's the contention of many in the court that it's NOT a right.  Therefore, if it were a right, licensing would be a violation.

So what we are left with is the argument that it is inherently unfair to be denied the same 'privileges' of some other citizens, simply because you don't fit the narrow definition of what allows that privilege.  However, simply being denied a 'privilege' does not mean your rights are subsequently violated.  It does mean that you are required to petition the legislature OR people themselves to amend the law to allow those privileges.   I have no problem myself if that request is granted.  But i'd prefer it be seen for what it is, and not what it isn't.  

The reason that slavery was a violation of rights, while gay marriage was not, was that slavery was forcefully preventing people from exercising their rights.  It wasn't because slaves were denied some official government granted privilege, it was because it denied people the right to exercise their natural born rights.  

That is the difference.  Denying gay marriage does not deny anyone the right to exercise their freedoms.  No freedom is being infringed upon.  I've heard everything from the freedom to pay taxes, to the fact that they couldn't make a living will, as reasons why marriage is a 'right'.  But they don't stand up to the test of reason.  Might granting the privilege of marriage to homosexual couples be the right thing to do?  Possibly.  But denying it on a state by state basis is NOT a violation of their 'rights'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 1, 2006)

Will the privilege of marriage be extended to homosexuals?  Likely, and probably in the near future.  I merely contend, however, that labelling it a right, sets a dangerous precedent.  Nothing should be called a right that requires allowing a government license.  Imagine a freedom of speech license.  It doesn't fly.

What's more, the best argument had is that denying gays the right to marriage is somehow a violation of the equal protection clause.  However, any honest assessment of this argument shows that it's a fallacious one.  Equal protection does not apply, as no person, regardless of status, is being denied a right granted to someone else.  

What?  But, you say, homosexuals are denied the right to marry that other people have.  No they aren't.  They have the exact SAME 'right' or 'privilege' to marriage as granted to any other person in this country.  But, they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but someone of the same sex.  Well, that's fine.  But no one has that right, so there is no equal protection violation.

Some people point to Loving v. Virginia as basically establishing the right to gay marriage.  In that case, a Virginia law preventing interracial couples from marrying existed.  It was determined that this law (obviously) violated equal protection.  So, the proponents of same-sex marriage say, it clearly shows that not allowing gay marriage is tantamount to the same act.

However, a couple of HUGE problems.  Virginia made it a crime to marry someone of a different race, and spelled out felony punishments if they did so in another state.  Moreover, it denied people, simply because of skin color, a 'privilege' granted others.  No one, homosexual or heterosexual, is granted the right to marry someone of the same sex., so there is no privileged class granted a right not shared by someone else because of some sort of status.  Equal protection does not apply.  

A violation of rights would be to pass a law stating that a homosexual couple had no right to live together, and making criminal penalties for doing so.  If a government, in fact, did that, i'd be the first in line to have the heads of any legislature who tried that.  
A perfect example of this were so called 'sodomy laws' that many states had outlawing homosexual activity.  This DID violate basic rights, as it outlawed free behavior between consenting adults.  It is not the right of the government to tell two adults what they may do in the privacy of their own homes.  It is not the right of the government to tell people who they may live with. 

However, that's a far cry from NOT expanding the definition of existing privileges to grant NEW privileges to everyone that never existed before.

Once again, a right is something the state doesn't have to grant.  It's already possessed.  All the government can do is take it away.  The government is not taking anything away at all, the people have simply refused to expand the definition of government bestowed privileges.

What's more, marriage is a civil contract, between two individuals, endorsed by the state.  Further, it is NOT only NOT a right, but it is, IN FACT a restriction of rights.  You are free as an unmarried person.  One you are married, however, you are restricted from certain other behaviors.  Marrying someone else, for example, while still married, is a CRIME.  Again, there is nothing about marriage that constitutes an absolute right.  Marriage began as a way for societies to assert CONTROL over individuals who seek to mate and have off-spring.  It was NEVER a right, but a restriction.  It said, that if you are going to engage in this activity, and produce off-spring, then these are the rules we will hold you to.  As such, something that further restricts your individual rights and liberties, CANNOT be called a right, as that is a contradiction in terms.  

What's more, the idea that certain economic incentives the state places on marriage FURTHER constitutes a right, that merely misunderstands what the state is doing.  The state provides economic incentives for other contracts, as well, such as some business arrangements (which, in effect, is what marriage is).  Not every person has a right to engage in other business arraingments as well, even those that provide incentives for doing so.  The reason incentives exist for marriage, is provide stability to a family unit that often is produced.  It is not the individual in a marriage that receives these incentives, is the 'corperation' that is created that receives them, which is in effect what a married couple is...a corperation.  Think i'm stretching it?  If I were, then why is all property considered common property.  Why is it required that a court divide up property when the corperation dissolves?  People do not have a right to a business contract.  

I rest my case.

Perhaps i'm putting too fine a point on a specific gripe I have about the argument FOR gay marriage, while at the same time not opposing gay marriage, but I do feel it's important to draw a clear line about what IS and IS NOT a right.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 1, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You are correct, it's not the topic. But since you brought it up, it bears pointing out WHY Britain ended the Atlantic Slave trade (Considering it was responsible for importing the bulk of those slaves, the majority of who ended up in the Caribbean to feed Britain's sweet tooth, rather than what became America).


 
There was also a large movement to end slavery. Many of the founding fathers, Franklin in particular denounced slavery as well but realpolitik kept the Americans from ending slavery due to the southern dependence on the practice. 



> It's obvious you've been paying too much attention to that 'free press' of yours, if you believe we are putting large segments of our population in 'camps'. The only people in 'camps' are terrorists who were captured in active armed conflict with US and other forces.


People of German descent were herded into neighborhoods in WW1. Japanese were put into camps during WW2. 



> Strength of arms to gain respect from peers? Who would they be, exactly? Those same peers who lived under our protection, and grew fat and wealthy by not having to provide their own defense from the soviets AFTER they required drawing us in to another European 'World War'? Those peers?


 
The US emerged as a superpower in the wake of WW2. Not before.



> What's more, it was the individual votes of individual Americans that did it, not the 'President'.


 
Sooo.... California rounded up US citizens of Japanese descent and put them in camps?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 1, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> There was also a large movement to end slavery. Many of the founding fathers, Franklin in particular denounced slavery as well but realpolitik kept the Americans from ending slavery due to the southern dependence on the practice.


 All of that is true.  It was believed that dealing with slavery at the beginning of the republic would cause it to be still-born.  They were probably right, though that doesn't change the evil nature of slavery.  Thomas Jefferson predicted that the slavery issue would ultimately result in a disasterous judgement against America.  Keep in mind, however, that the British didn't decide to end the Atlantic Slave trade until about 1807, and only then, when it was becoming less profitable for Britain and more profitable for France, Spain, the Dutch, and the Portugeuse.   

The US government, at the same time, began making slave trading more difficult and costly, and shortly ban further importation of slaves.  In fact, in 1820, the US federal government made slave trading tantamount to piracy, carrying the penalty of death.   In fact, the US Navy sent ships, along with the British, to patrol the west coast of Africa, to patrol for slavers.  So, in actuality, the US federal government moved to ban slave trading at the same time as the British.  The problem, however, was that the federal government feared banning the currently retained slaves of the southern states out of fear of dissolving the union.  The British, as well, continued to allow slave use in the West Indies, they merely, like the US, banned further importation.  Only in 1834 did Britain absolish slavery in the West Indies.

Spain and Portugal in particular continued the slave trade for a number of years more.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> People of German descent were herded into neighborhoods in WW1. Japanese were put into camps during WW2.


 Certainly, though the US wasn't alone in this, not even among allies.




			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> The US emerged as a superpower in the wake of WW2. Not before.


 It was the industrial capacity of the US that won WW2.  Without our merchandise, the allies would have fallen.  Stalin said himself that the Studebaker truck won him the war.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Sooo.... California rounded up US citizens of Japanese descent and put them in camps?


 I note your sarcasm, but point out that one of the few exceptions that originally was determined to have justified overriding state authority, was time of war.  Keep that in mind, that was a political decision of FDR.  Was it justified at the time?  Who knows, I wasn't there to make the decision.  I can say, however, that merely pointing out that the US put Japanese-Americans in to prison camps during World War II certainly doesn't give Europe any moral authority on anything.  Lest we forget, France, Germany and Great Britain have FAR more crimes in their veried histories than we could hope to achieve....  Many of them more recent than even World War II.  

The vast majority of the wars we've become embroilled in, in the 20th century (and the 21st) were a direct result of European colonialism and imperialism.  When the arab world refers to the west, they aren't just talking about the US.  They are referring to the far older meddling of Europeans.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 1, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> All of that is true. It was believed that dealing with slavery at the beginning of the republic would cause it to be still-born. They were probably right, though that doesn't change the evil nature of slavery.


 
Yep. Just 'cause it was expedient doesn't make it right. 



> Certainly, though the US wasn't alone in this, not even among allies.


 
Doesn't make it less evil.



> It was the industrial capacity of the US that won WW2. Without our merchandise, the allies would have fallen. Stalin said himself that the Studebaker truck won him the war.


 
The US still was not recognized as a super power before WW2. 



> I note your sarcasm, but point out that one of the few exceptions that originally was determined to have justified overriding state authority, was time of war. Keep that in mind, that was a political decision of FDR. Was it justified at the time? Who knows, I wasn't there to make the decision.


 
Historical relativism aside, I'm pretty sure only Malkin thinks it was a good idea. 



> I can say, however, that merely pointing out that the US put Japanese-Americans in to prison camps during World War II certainly doesn't give Europe any moral authority on anything. Lest we forget, France, Germany and Great Britain have FAR more crimes in their veried histories than we could hope to achieve....


 
Only because they've been around longer.



> Many of them more recent than even World War II.


 
We're rapidly gaining ground.  



> The vast majority of the wars we've become embroilled in, in the 20th century (and the 21st) were a direct result of European colonialism and imperialism.


 
The US really hasn't demonstrated a superior track record in that respect. It wasn't the Europeans that decided it was a great idea to gain a foothold Iran by attempting to install a puppet government for example. What we're seeing right now is a direct result of a failed US action etc. 



> When the arab world refers to the west, they aren't just talking about the US. They are referring to the far older meddling of Europeans.


 
The most recent meddling tends to draw a lot of attention as well.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2006)

Folks, are we discussing same gender relations, race relations, or the rise of the US as a superpower here?


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 1, 2006)

Yes, how about if we return to the original topic?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> The US really hasn't demonstrated a superior track record in that respect. It wasn't the Europeans that decided it was a great idea to gain a foothold Iran by attempting to install a puppet government for example. What we're seeing right now is a direct result of a failed US action etc.
> The most recent meddling tends to draw a lot of attention as well.


 I'd love to continue this debate at length, but the moderator's are right, we should return to the topic.  

I will only point out this for the record, it was the British who engineered the installation of the Shah.  The CIA's involvement is often over-blown and exaggerated, while the actual power behind it was MI-6.....just for the record. http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm

It was British Petroleum (then the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) and the nationalization of it's production capabilities, that was the chief motivation, not American interests.  This wasn't a US oil company, and it wasn't US money at stake....It was PURELY British.  

The British merely asked for CIA assistance.  Again, European meddling, not American.  It might do you and my European friends good to examine the REAL histories involved here, not revert to 'blame it all on the US' reflexive responses.  Europe has ZERO room to criticize ANYONE on humanitarian grounds, and it does so only as a political expedient.  In other words it WAS the Europeans who created the current situation in Iran....they just dragged us along with them in to a mess (as so much of becoming involved in European plots have gotten us in the last century...Washington may have been right).  

If we desire to debate this further, create a thread, and i'll join you there to debate it further.  

However, back to the topic at hand.  Marriage, as i've argued, is not a right at all.  However, it is certainly a privilege I see no harm in expanding the definition of, if the citizens of the various states involved agree to it.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Jan 3, 2006)

Gents, England has it's share of sins. That is true.
But, we still ended slavery before you did, and we didn't have to fight a war to do it, whatever our reasons. Your own internal matter was more political and financial than for any concept of equality or human concerns, as the years afterwards proved. We have also stepped forward again in basic human treatment ahead of you, again, for whatever reasons we may have, by extending the rights and privileges to a previously discriminated against section of our population.

Who knows. Perhaps your rejects will come here, and bring their wealth and knowledge to us, enriching us, while continuing to impoverish you.

At the risk of a bad joke, finally Charles can become Queen. Cheers mates.


----------

