Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[ave_turuta]

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´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]

:cheers: to Ave.

Thank you.

Thanks boss!

(and thanks everyone else) :asian:

 

[Kane]

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´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]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?