Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[ave_turuta]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The courts decide 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 calling you on it. Angry indignation does not an argument make.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.'"

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.