Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[bignick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 —
Stan: Or woman.
Reg: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan? You're putting us off.
Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
Francis: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
Stan: I want to be one.
Reg, Francis: What?
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me "Loretta".
Reg: Wha'?
Stan: It's my right as a man.
Judith: Well,why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Stan: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!
Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But... you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan, you haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?
[Stan/Loretta starts to cry.]
Judith: Here! I-I've got an idea. Suppose that you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb — which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' — but that he can have the right to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
Reg: Wh-what's the point?
Francis: Wha'?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

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

Oh, Monty Python is such wonderful social satire.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

We already allow Republicans to marry Democrats.

 

[sgtmac_46]

We already allow Republicans to marry Democrats.

That's a crime against nature in itself.

 

[Kane]

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.

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

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.

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]

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.



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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.