Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[ave_turuta]

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

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

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

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ave_turuta]

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

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

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

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

Goodbye.

 

[sgtmac_46]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goodbye.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sircar's corollary

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

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


It's an exact science. :rofl:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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

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

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

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

There were protests, marches, and violence.

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

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


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


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

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

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

Or

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[ave_turuta]

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


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

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

 

[ave_turuta]

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

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

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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

 

[arnisador]

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

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

 

[heretic888]

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

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

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

You should probably talk to an anthropologist or two before making claims like this. There has never been a uniform definition of "marriage" in Western civilization, at least not in the past 100 years.

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

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You should probably talk to an anthropologist or two before making claims like this. There has never been a uniform definition of "marriage" in Western civilization, at least not in the past 100 years.

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

Laterz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I've been married, and i've not been married. Really, it doesn't make much difference. A committed relationship is a committed relationship.

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

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Marginal]

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

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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

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

 

[heretic888]

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

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

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

And yet random websites can do the trick??

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

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

Laterz.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Why would anyone WANT 2 wives?

Thats what girlfriends are for.

 

[sgtmac_46]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

Why would anyone WANT 2 wives?

Thats what girlfriends are for.

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

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