Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[ave_turuta]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.