PDA

View Full Version : A Debate on Homosexuality


themadchemist
Jan 20, 2004, 09:30 PM
Hi everyone. I was watching the State of the Union and talking to a friend on AIM. It sparked a debate about foreign policy, homosexuality, etc. The foreign policy stuff might too quickly become political, but I thought I'd share the homosexuality side of the debate.

Me (8:58:33 PM): oh, now, he goes and attacks gay marriage.
Me (8:58:36 PM): how disgusting.
Me (8:58:50 PM): on an issue of such great consequence, the voice of hte Bill of Rights must be heard.
Me (8:58:57 PM): "The arbitrary will" of the constitution
Me (8:59:13 PM): Our nation must defend the rights of its people, not oppress and persecute them for an inborn trait
Me (8:59:27 PM): until we can all have democracy at home, let us not march about the world inflicting it upon others.
Me (8:59:52 PM): We don't define things legally in the United States through the use of God's WIll and God's Eyes.
Me (9:00:00 PM): THat's not the way the game is played.
My Conservative Friend (9:00:03 PM): We're allowing gays to marry .... they just have to marry epople of the opposite sex just like us
Me (9:00:23 PM): no, we're not allowing them to marry the people they love and to whom they are dedicated
Me (9:00:40 PM): we are oppressing htem by forcing them into a social institution that they are not genetically predisposed to
My Conservative Friend (9:00:42 PM): marriage is procreative and sacred
Me (9:00:49 PM): marriage is a tax break
Me (9:00:53 PM): and a government recognition
Me (9:01:02 PM): the Church does not have to accept t.
Me (9:01:05 PM): *it
My Conservative Friend (9:01:10 PM): they're allowed to have sex and love other men and women
Me (9:01:12 PM): but the government does.
Me (9:01:21 PM): because there is nothing that is legislated that is not secular.
Me (9:01:32 PM): Therefore you cannot look at any piece of legislation in other than a secular light.
Me (9:01:53 PM): There is no justification for prohibiting homosexual marriage aside from religion. And the eyes of the law are blind to religion.
Me (9:02:02 PM): They should be allowed to have sex and love other men and women.
Me (9:02:10 PM): More laws that should never have been instated
Me (9:02:19 PM): sodomy laws have been found unconstitutional
My Conservative Friend (9:02:30 PM): Marriage is for raising children, and America was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and traditions.
Me (9:02:35 PM): Perhaps it is more constitutional to tie homosexuals to the back of trucks and kill them.
My Conservative Friend (9:02:45 PM): So even if it was a religious argument, I don't think that makes it wrong
Me (9:02:48 PM): America was not founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and traditions.
My Conservative Friend (9:02:56 PM): OF COURSE THEY SHOULDN"T BE KILLED
Me (9:02:59 PM): It was founded on secular principles and universal ethics

My Conservative Friend (9:03:01 PM): yes, yes, it was
Me (9:03:19 PM): no, those judeo-christian ethics are shared by other religions far older
Me (9:03:34 PM): and even if it was, it was also founded on the principles of John Locke and Socrates and Plato
Me (9:03:45 PM): And there's that little thing called the Establishment Clause
Me (9:03:51 PM): I don't know if you forgot it
My Conservative Friend (9:04:00 PM): and public opinion still shows that Americans don't want gay marriage
Me (9:04:04 PM): It means that religious arguments don't hold water in this country
Me (9:04:09 PM): it's not about public opinion
Me (9:04:23 PM): The Bill of Rights is meant to protect the minority from the will of the majority
Me (9:04:33 PM): In the South, most would agree that my religion is contemptible.
Me (9:04:40 PM): Perhaps it should be outlawed.
My Conservative Friend (9:04:50 PM): no, that's ridiculous
Me (9:04:58 PM): precisely
My Conservative Friend (9:05:03 PM): it is about public opinion, that's why this is a democracy
Me (9:05:06 PM): as is the prohibition of homsexual marriage
Me (9:05:12 PM): no, it is not about public opinion
My Conservative Friend (9:05:14 PM): and the right to gay marriage is not protected inthe Constiotiuion
Me (9:05:23 PM): If it were, tehn I would not be allowed to practice my religion
Me (9:05:48 PM): Equal protection of all citizens is provided by the constitution
My Conservative Friend (9:05:53 PM): no, religion is protected in the Bill of Rights

themadchemist
Jan 20, 2004, 09:31 PM
My Conservative Friend (9:05:57 PM): the right to marriage is not
Me (9:06:05 PM): And the Establishement Clause protects this country from the claws of religious arguments
My Conservative Friend (9:06:06 PM): you could still be Hindu
Me (9:07:37 PM): How is the prohibition of homosexual marriage constitutional? It, without grounds or concerns for PUBLIC SAFETY, abridges the rights of a minority.
Me (9:07:51 PM): That is an affront to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States.
My Conservative Friend (9:08:18 PM): morality
My Conservative Friend (9:08:24 PM): and it's not PROTECTED
Me (9:08:32 PM): what does it have to do with morality?
My Conservative Friend (9:08:37 PM): it's not that anything that is not listed is safe
Me (9:08:41 PM): That morality can only be justified by religion
Me (9:08:51 PM): And remember, that's off limits
My Conservative Friend (9:08:53 PM): it's the things that are protected in writing are allowed
Me (9:09:08 PM): oh, me wearing two different colored socks is not protected
Me (9:09:12 PM): I should go to jail.
Me (9:09:20 PM): No, it's about what the spirit of the constitution is.
My Conservative Friend (9:09:22 PM): sigh
My Conservative Friend (9:09:37 PM): and the spirt protected religon, press, speech, assembly, petition
My Conservative Friend (9:09:43 PM): it did not protect homosexuality
Me (9:09:53 PM): It also protected the rights of all citizens for equal protection
Me (9:10:01 PM): Homosexuals are not being protected
Me (9:11:11 PM): The government is using religion as evidence to defend a law that abridges the rights of homosexuals and reinforces an oppressive societal construct that prevents their liberty and happiness within this country, a liberty and happiness that could be protected without the detriment to any other.
My Conservative Friend (9:11:39 PM): can't we just agree to disagree? :-)
Me (9:11:45 PM): No.
Me (9:12:02 PM): Because the stakes of these debates are too high.
My Conservative Friend (9:13:05 PM): Well, yes, but as I said, the American people do not want gay marriage, the Constitution does not give us a right to gay marriage, so there is no reason we should have it.
Me (9:13:37 PM): The South didn't want slavery to end and there was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.
Me (9:13:47 PM): I could sure use a black person to clean up my room right about now, couldn't you?
My Conservative Friend (9:13:54 PM): and then they added something to the Constituion
My Conservative Friend (9:14:09 PM): besides, its not the South doesn't want gay marriage, it's America doesn't want gay marriage
Me (9:14:13 PM): well, when a group is being oppressed, maybe it's time to add something to the Constitution.
Me (9:14:52 PM): but I thought this country was smart enough that we didn't need to fill our constitution with unnecessary specifics to get the point.
Me (9:15:06 PM): and homosexuality is not a question of morality, it is a question of biology.
My Conservative Friend (9:15:13 PM): it's the difference between a strict constructionist reading and a looser, more liberal reading
Me (9:15:25 PM): most credible studies demonstrate sexuality to be a genetic manifestation
Me (9:15:34 PM): It's the difference between a machine and a human being.
My Conservative Friend (9:15:41 PM): I agree. I don't think people choose to be gay.
Me (9:15:45 PM): It is the difference between having been gifted with reason and having not.
Me (9:15:58 PM): I like to use the reason I was given. Republicans oughta try it. It's fun!
My Conservative Friend (9:16:08 PM): hahaha
My Conservative Friend (9:16:10 PM): :-)
Me (9:16:14 PM): If people can't choose to be gay, how can we persecute them for being gay?

Me (9:16:29 PM): How can we torture them by forcing them to suppress natural biological motivations?
My Conservative Friend (9:16:31 PM): we'll allow them to be GAY, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to marry
My Conservative Friend (9:16:36 PM): sodomy is legal
Me (9:16:44 PM): why shouldn't we allow them to marry?
Me (9:16:52 PM): is their form of love somehow more gross, somehow less loving?
Me (9:17:07 PM): and marriage isn't about children, because the married are not forced to have children.
My Conservative Friend (9:17:09 PM): it does not and cannot create a child
My Conservative Friend (9:17:13 PM): no, they're not
Me (9:17:23 PM): so are sterile people not allowed to get married
My Conservative Friend (9:17:28 PM): but marriage is a sacred institution, the foundation of families
Me (9:17:32 PM): that can't create a child either
Me (9:17:39 PM): NOthing is sacred in the United States.
Me (9:17:45 PM): Not before the government.
Me (9:17:51 PM): That is how we protect people's rights.
My Conservative Friend (9:17:53 PM): I'll admit part of it is religious for me.
My Conservative Friend (9:18:00 PM): I have gay friends.
Me (9:18:05 PM): By leaving partisan religion out of it.
My Conservative Friend (9:18:16 PM): But I don't think that it is good for the American society by allowing gay marriage.
Me (9:18:23 PM): You don't have to ascribe to religion in this country. let's protect the rights of atheists by not bringing religion into the discussion.
My Conservative Friend (9:18:25 PM): I think it devalues the instituion.
My Conservative Friend (9:18:30 PM): fine, fair enough
Me (9:18:33 PM): what's so bad about it?
Me (9:18:39 PM): how does it devalue them?
My Conservative Friend (9:18:41 PM): gay people tend to have more partners
My Conservative Friend (9:18:43 PM): be less stable
Me (9:18:46 PM): Your friends.
My Conservative Friend (9:18:52 PM): no statistically
Me (9:18:55 PM): No, they dont
My Conservative Friend (9:18:57 PM): yes, they do
Me (9:19:02 PM): what the hell are yo utalking about?
Me (9:19:13 PM): you are speaking based on stereotypes
My Conservative Friend (9:19:17 PM): statistics show that gay men on average have many more sexual partners than straight men.
Me (9:19:32 PM): Whose statistics?
Me (9:19:37 PM): Who funded the study?
Me (9:19:43 PM): A conservative think-tank, no doubt.
Me (9:19:51 PM): It doesn't even matter, anyway.
Me (9:20:11 PM): If there is one loving, monogamous homosexual partnership, then that is enough to allow homosexual marriage.
My Conservative Friend (9:21:00 PM): see, that's where we disagree
My Conservative Friend (9:21:18 PM): I think the stability and morality of the American public and society is more important than one loving couple.
Me (9:21:26 PM): my point is, though, that your stat is wrong, anyway
Me (9:21:43 PM): And how does an unstable marriage destabilize other people's marriages?
Me (9:21:51 PM): We better stop letting people divorce.
My Conservative Friend (9:21:54 PM): marriage would no longer signigy anything
My Conservative Friend (9:22:01 PM): it should be harder to get divorced, yes
Me (9:22:12 PM): I think protecting battered wives is less important than protecting the stability of the institution of marriage.
Me (9:22:38 PM): And you know what, it is destabilizing marriage by allowing those damn races to mix.
My Conservative Friend (9:23:18 PM): Very funny. I get your point.
My Conservative Friend (9:23:37 PM): could we stop arguing? I doubt you will convince me or me you.
Me (9:23:40 PM): no really, what IS the price we pay for stability?
My Conservative Friend (9:24:08 PM): I want marriage to mean something. That's all.
Me (9:24:18 PM): And so do homosexuals.
My Conservative Friend (9:24:28 PM): fine, fair enough

bannedagain
Jan 20, 2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by themadchemist
Me (9:17:51 PM): That is how we protect people's rights.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the US proctects Human Rights.

themadchemist
Jan 20, 2004, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by bannedagain
I wouldn't go as far as saying that the US proctects Human Rights.

fair enough, but it ought to.

Abstract
Jan 20, 2004, 10:35 PM
This debate is soooooo gay.

Most of the people I talk to are for gay marriages, not against them, and yet more than half the population doesn't like it. What gives?

Its like Britney Spears fans.......I don't know of any, and never have. Not even one single fan. Yet she has millions of fans. Strange. :confused:

Independence
Jan 20, 2004, 10:45 PM
Concerning religion, this is what I posted in another forum:

Originally posted by Predator16
I really hope that Ayatollah Bush loses the election.

Just skim-read the article. You can just see the hypocracy and religious fanaticism. I'd have thought that by now people would've realized that religion and politics don't mix. When are we going to see some progress in America?

I'm leaving the country in the near future.

When I said "just skim-read the article," someone had posted the entire State of the Union. And even if you don't entirely agree with my post, you at least have to believe that there's some logic in what I said.

scem0
Jan 20, 2004, 10:52 PM
Bah, how will homosexual marriage detract from the stability of the US?

That is a load of bull.

If two people love each other, they should be together. Marriage is nothing but words, flowers, and cake. Yes, it is a glorious, grand thing, but a couple that doesn't love each other will not make it whether or not they have a wedding.

It is what is in the heart that counts. Even though homosexuals SHOULD be able to marry, that is less important then people accepting their communion.

I think marriage is a wonderful thing; I hope to get married some day. But I'd much rather be accepted by my family, my friends, and the population then have a wedding.

If your gay and want to have a wedding. Then by all means, have a wedding. Who the **** cares if the government doesn't recognize it.

My family owns a mansion in Austin where people get married every weekend. There have been homosexual marriages at the mansion, and trust me, I have more hope for the gay marriages than the straight marriages, because to gay people marriage has nothing to do with the government. I'm not saying all staight people don't love each other and just get married because the government allows it. I'm saying that marriage should be about love, and not about laws.

scem0

edit -

And I think all the anti-homosexual marriage arguments are purely religious and personal. Seperation of church and state is something that makes the US as strong as it is. So, if anything makes the US weaker, it is not allowing gay marriage. It promotes christian ethics as part of our government, and christian ethics don't belong in the government.

scem0

denjeff
Jan 21, 2004, 03:35 PM
And I think all the anti-homosexual marriage arguments are purely religious and personal. Seperation of church and state is something that makes the US as strong as it is. So, if anything makes the US weaker, it is not allowing gay marriage. It promotes christian ethics as part of our government, and christian ethics don't belong in the government.


I think i you let Bush do, there will be no separation of church and state... Before every meeting he attends to, all people must say the prayers with him.

I am pro gay marriage, I live in a country that allows it :) (guess waht country I live in :D ) If two people love eachother and they want to grow old with eachother, then what s the difference between being straight or gay?!?

krimson
Jan 21, 2004, 04:12 PM
I suppose Bushie will try to admend the constitution :p

...all people are created equal, unless you're gay...

edit: Oh, let the gay couples get married, seriously, this isn't the 1800's anymore, and the seperation between church and state seems to be narrowing more and more.

vniow
Jan 21, 2004, 04:28 PM
If my marriage to another woman somehow affects yours (yours meaning hetero marriages) in any way, then the foundation in which they were built upon must not have been very strong to begin with.

rueyeet
Jan 21, 2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by scem0
Marriage should be about love, and not about laws.....If your gay and want to have a wedding. Then by all means, have a wedding. Who the **** cares if the government doesn't recognize it.

The hospital, if you're denied the right to sign permissions for vital medical treatments for a lifelong partner. The insurance companies, if they don't allow "domestic partner" coverage. The IRS. A mortgage company, if you can't buy the house you want because you and your partner can't get the same rate as a married couple. Etc.

Marriage is the legal recognition of the loving arrangement between committed partners, and as such, carries additional legal rights and responsibilities over and above what's given to "domestic partners" or co-habiting adults or anything else. And that is precisely what gay partners are being denied.

I'm glad you're all for gay marriage, scem0....just don't lose the whole picture. :)

/soapbox, before I get into the whole "marriage is for procreation" hogwash.

Counterfit
Jan 21, 2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by rueyeet
/soapbox, before I get into the whole "marriage is for procreation" hogwash. hehe, too bad your forgot the []'s :D

bryanc
Jan 21, 2004, 06:14 PM
I continue to be "shocked and awed" at the bigotry, close-mindedness, xenophobia, hypocrisy and self-serving dishonesty exhibited by the president of the united states.

Certainly makes me glad I was able to get out of the US before my beliefs brought me to the attention of the thought police.

Bush seems to believe his actions are making the world a "better place," and it certainly is becoming a better place for American Corporations and the wealthiest 5% of American citizens, but if you're not one of that select few, the New World Order is looking like pretty bad news.

I can only hope that the American Citizens of the United States get a clue and vote the bugger out!

martin
Jan 21, 2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by rueyeet
The hospital, if you're denied the right to sign permissions for vital medical treatments for a lifelong partner. The insurance companies, if they don't allow "domestic partner" coverage. The IRS. A mortgage company, if you can't buy the house you want because you and your partner can't get the same rate as a married couple. Etc.
Gay couples could possibly use "Power Of Attorney" laws to legaly assign rights to each other.

Now IANAL (hehehe he said "anal") but isn't it discriminatory to offer something to a married couple (like cheaper rates) that others can't get. Discrimination on the basis of marital status. Aren't there laws against that? There are here.

Fukui
Jan 21, 2004, 07:54 PM
Wow, I tried to stay away from these types of discussions..but heres my opinion.

Why does the government even mandate what a "marriage" is...in other words, why are two people (to say nothing about gay) forced to follow what the government says is how they should be wed...I don't understand it.

If two people live together and have children and stay together for thier whole life...what is the difference? Nothing except a piece of paper and different taxes. I don't want the gov. defining what love is, isn't that what people are for?

evolu
Jan 21, 2004, 08:52 PM
Bravo madchemist for a fun debate. Conservatives are so rediculous.

There should be a progressive handbook:

If:
a conservative says marriage is an instution for procreation,

then:
ask if infirtle people should be denied the right to marry.

etc...

But, GW keeps the USA #1, right?

He's made us the FIRST country to every pull out of a treaty - Anti Ballistic Missle Treaty (Aug 24 2001 (before sept 11)).

FIRST pre-emptive strike on a soverign country.

And this could be the FIRST Constitutional Amendment to actually take away the rights of US citizens!

We gotta get him out!

martin
Jan 21, 2004, 08:56 PM
I think that's what the problem is: governmental intervention. It's only recently here that de-facto marriages were recognised legally, for the purposes of superannuation and other benefits. Before that, it didn't matter if you'd lived together for 20 years and had a dozen kids - you got nothing and had no say.

revenuee
Jan 21, 2004, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Abstract

Its like Britney Spears fans.......I don't know of any, and never have. Not even one single fan. Yet she has millions of fans. Strange. :confused:

Not one? .... Every other girls from 1st to 4th year like britney's "music"

anyhow ... i have yet to here a real argument for why homosexuals should not be aloud to get married... not one ever

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 21, 2004, 09:31 PM
marriage has been for two thousand years between man and a woman, now you want to change the definition to suite some new age movement? wouldnt it just be easier to come up with a new civil union law then trying to rewrite and change the definition of marriage and then ramming it down the throats of 95% of the population that arent gay? marriage has never ment same sex unions but through history marriage has ment opposite sex unions so accept it.

jayscheuerle
Jan 21, 2004, 09:32 PM
If marriage is a religious institution, remove all bureaucratic benefits of marriage from it and let each religion decide whom they'd like to include into their little clubs.

Offer the bureaucratic benefits of marriage to every couple in terms of a civil union.

A heterosexual couple getting married in a Catholic church would receive no recognition from the state until they completed their civil union forms.

A homosexual couple getting married in a Unitarian church would receive recognition from the state once they completed their civil union forms.

This is basic separation of church and state and the conservatives would get their homophobic churches to refrain from blessing gay marriages if they wanted, but it wouldn't effect whether or not benefits were granted.

Why is this so hard?

vniow
Jan 21, 2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
so accept it.

Over my dead dyke body.

Counterfit
Jan 21, 2004, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by vniow
Over my dead dyke body. ROFL! well said! :D

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
to suite some new age movement? The movement for marriage may be somewhat new, but homosexuality is far from it. It was considered normal for a teenage boy in ancient Greece to experiment with it.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 21, 2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by vniow
Over my dead dyke body. LoL, look i wasnt brought up in Kalifornia so a lot of these new and strange ideas arent public knowledge in the other 49 states. why is it so important for gays to have this married thing? its a pain in the neck if you ever divorce. a civil union seems easier to make and break.:cool:

revenuee
Jan 21, 2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
marriage has been for two thousand years between man and a woman, now you want to change the definition to suite some new age movement? wouldnt it just be easier to come up with a new civil union law then trying to rewrite and change the definition of marriage and then ramming it down the throats of 95% of the population that arent gay? marriage has never ment same sex unions but through history marriage has ment opposite sex unions so accept it.

Thats not an argument ... thats a faux history lesson.

not to mention that 2000 years is a bit on the short side :rolleyes:

Accept it? some new age movement?

Gays have been around thousands of years, so it's not that new age.

Definitions are changed all the time ... The Romans had their gods ... and out of know where Constantine converts to christianity after over 300 years of tradition. ... New age .. yet everyone changed

Marriage was the union of man and women ... to express love and to procreate and continue a lineage ... a family

Now ... more and more heterosexual couples are choosing not to procreate. This summer i read an article about this actually being a problem in France, apparently the population is declining.

So then the marriage is solely based on the expression of love an the want for companionship ...

how does this arrangement differ from a gay couple?

the only difference is that the heterosexual marriage leaves for tax breaks ... and the homosexual one doesn't

vniow
Jan 21, 2004, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
why is it so important for gays to have this married thing?

Its a pretty simple concept, having to do with civil rights and being treated as equals...

Nah, that's too much to ask.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 21, 2004, 10:05 PM
you allready have rights and should be treated equal. who is violating your civil rights or treating you less then equal? are you saying because govt denies same sex marriages they are violating your civil rights?

vniow
Jan 21, 2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you allready have rights and should be treated equal. who is violating your civil rights or treating you less then equal? are you saying because govt denies same sex marriages they are violating your civil rights?

Lets try this again:

You are attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

I am attracted to someone of the same sex.

Sometimes, when people are attracted to each other they fall in love. This occasionally leads to marriage. In this country only people like you are allowed to get married under the law. People like me are not.

Do I need to make this any more clear that we as homosexuals are not being treated as equals here?

Counterfit
Jan 21, 2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by revenuee
TDefinitions are changed all the time ... The Romans had their gods ... and out of know where Constantine converts to christianity after over 300 years of tradition. ... New age .. yet everyone changed Well, that's a bit different, because their choice was Christianity or death. Now, the choice is homosexual marriage, or no homosexual marriage, a bit simpler, but harder to get everyone on the same page.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 21, 2004, 10:22 PM
ok vniow i hear you, all i can say is you better vote democrat.

Fukui
Jan 22, 2004, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you allready have rights and should be treated equal. who is violating your civil rights or treating you less then equal? are you saying because govt denies same sex marriages they are violating your civil rights?
Think of it from the other way around: You are born in a country where everyone is Gay (yea yea hypothetical I know), and you as a straight person wanna only be around women, but none of them wanna be around you cause your so "obnormal," but you finally find a girl that is like you and wants to be with you (assuming your a guy), but this hypothetical country wont let you because 95 percent of them are against being straight...see how your feelings for self expression and love are restricted?

Basically, we all just wanna live our lives in peace and happiness, why does the government even involve itself with the definition of love? Isn't that something that only 2 people share between themselves? Has nothing to do with everyone else....

cddonline
Jan 22, 2004, 01:01 AM
I'd like to point out that historically, not all societies have shunned lifelong homosexual partnerships. An example that I recently learned of(at a talk entitled "Women loving Women: Then and Now"):
+ Various native american tribes felt that sexual identity was not about your anatomy, but rather about your spiritual self. If your spirit was male, it didn't matter if you were female, you were considered a male, and thus could form a lifelong partnership with a female. While this wasn't technically considered homosexuality (as one of the partners was considered to be of the other sex), it meant that these tribes had and respected "same sex" couples.

Why is our current view of marriage as a heterosexual instituion any more valid than the views of these tribes that if a man is spiritually a woman, he/she can "marry" a man?

Yes, yes, I know, this is moral relativism, but as a liberal, I am quite the moral relativist.

bwawn
Jan 22, 2004, 02:04 AM
themadchemist, I would like to commend you for such a mature, rational, logical stand for such an important issue. I support every bit of your argument almost 100%. Actually, though, it is true that gay men do engage in sexual activity with more partners on the average than heterosexual men. This isn't to say that a gay man can be serious and be sexual with only one other person, but on the average, gay men have more partners than heterosexual individuals. Interestingly, on the average, homosexual women have far fewer partners than homosexual men or heterosexuals. Also, if you were to break down the amount of sexual activity various couples engage in, you would find that -- once again, on the average -- homosexual female couples engage in very little sexual activity, heterosexual couples engage in a fair amount of sexual activity, and homosexual male couples engage in the most sexual activity. Because of testosterone and other factors, homosexual males have far more partners and engage in far more sexual activity than most other individuals. (The statistics on heterosexual couples symbolizes a sexual "compromise" of sorts and the statistics on homosexual females shows the sexual nature of the common female. Stereotypes of men being more into sex are very much true, and as much as I hate to admit that as a man, it's been proven.) There are studies that support this -- you can Google for them. I am very much a liberal and extremely pro-gay rights, but I thought you'd be interested to know these statistics from studies I have heard about.

But once again, I would like to commend you for your extremely well-thought arguments. You seem to be young based on your profile -- almost three years younger than me -- but your ability to think rationally are above and beyond the ability of those governing us, regardless of party affiliation. At least, after suffering through the State of the Union, I stick by that praise.

evolu
Jan 22, 2004, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
marriage has been for two thousand years between man and a woman, now you want to change the definition to suite some new age movement? wouldnt it just be easier to come up with a new civil union law then trying to rewrite and change the definition of marriage and then ramming it down the throats of 95% of the population that arent gay? marriage has never ment same sex unions but through history marriage has ment opposite sex unions so accept it.

"Ah, land-ownin' and voting rights have always been fo' white people.... Uh, why don't those g** **** blacks and women just sit back and shut up and let the gobernment bus-i-ness be handled by the white man like it's always been. Shhhoooooot!"

Try again. Sexism is just like racism. Just because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals in the world doesn't mean they don't deserve the same benefits most people enjoy.

Politics of exclusion have no place in a progressive and modernised society. Politics of enfranchisement puts our societal energies into the common upliftment of humanity as a whole.

Pseudonym
Jan 22, 2004, 04:03 AM
This seems to come down to an issue of religion and state. In France, all marriages have to be carried out in a civil institution. The religious then have an additional service at their church/mosque/temple.....

I don't agree that any one faith, denomination or anything else should go hand in hand with the state. I think the conversion of the Emperor Constantine in the 4th century was disasterous for Christianity. Conversion should be free and not forced in any way. God doesn't need the help of the government!

So the question then becomes: what is the moral basis for the state? That is where the problems start. For centuries the UK, US etc have been based on largely Christian morals. Now the majority of people no longer hold those morals. I would argue that the morals of the state should reflect the morals of the people being governed.

So what do you do then if you disagree with the state's morals? Well you speak out prophetically. You take your stand. You go to prison. That's what the likes of Luther King jr did.

Sabenth
Jan 22, 2004, 05:23 AM
who put this nut in charge seriously. bloody barmy. whats your sexualty got to do with the way the bloody world turns. Fing relgion i apolgies to all those who are relgious. Bush is really pushing his dam luck oust him out before he starts world war 3 or 4....

And yes i am straight
and yes iam pro gay marage
Pro Soft drugs
and pro legalised prostatuition

and no i am not american but i thought id put my 2 dollars worth in

erik1975
Jan 22, 2004, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
ok vniow i hear you, all i can say is you better vote democrat.

Better check that, I am fairly certain that all of the Democratic candidates are against gay marriage as well.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 22, 2004, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by martin
Gay couples could possibly use "Power Of Attorney" laws to legaly assign rights to each other.

Now IANAL (hehehe he said "anal") but isn't it discriminatory to offer something to a married couple (like cheaper rates) that others can't get. Discrimination on the basis of marital status. Aren't there laws against that? There are here.

It is possible for gay couples to gain some of the rights through a Power of Attorney and other legal wranglings. But why should we have to pay for legal documents that a simple Marriage Certificate would automatically cover?

Married couples get lower mortgage rates becuase of the view that they would have a harder time "bailing' out on a mortgage. Two unmarried people are held to a different accounting, becuase the mortgage has to stand as indivuals, not as a couple. They are not discriminating under the law.

virividox
Jan 22, 2004, 07:19 AM
well with conservatives in power i doubt anything will get moving, it will take someone pretty liberal to change the state of things.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 22, 2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
If marriage is a religious institution, remove all bureaucratic benefits of marriage from it and let each religion decide whom they'd like to include into their little clubs.

Offer the bureaucratic benefits of marriage to every couple in terms of a civil union.

A heterosexual couple getting married in a Catholic church would receive no recognition from the state until they completed their civil union forms.

A homosexual couple getting married in a Unitarian church would receive recognition from the state once they completed their civil union forms.

This is basic separation of church and state and the conservatives would get their homophobic churches to refrain from blessing gay marriages if they wanted, but it wouldn't effect whether or not benefits were granted.

Why is this so hard?

Here here!

I do not want to force any church to recognize a union that their docterine does not allow for.

But if the government is going to bestow rights to married people , they can not and must not let their own religious beliefs interfere with rights that others enjoy.

One thing that many miss is that as long as there is a marriage penalty tax, there is a financial benefit to the government in expanding the definition of marriage.

Remember that it was not that long ago that blacks and whites were not allowed to marry.

grouse
Jan 22, 2004, 08:41 AM
I think it's marriage here that is the problem, not the solution.

Marriage has been hijacked for years by politicians of every colour as a means to control the population. The family unit (much more Waltons and less Simpsons, remember George's daddy?) is considered by politicians a good way to control the masses. A family unit takes responsibility for its actions, has 2.4 children that are bound together in a shared purpose which helps reduce crime, increase educational standards and potentially reduce poverty, or at least shift the responsibility for these things from the Government to the individual family unit.

Of course swathes of policy have made this more problematic. But how much simpler is it for policy makers in Italy, not having to worry about care homes for the elderly, when generally (very generally) speaking, the old are looked after by their kids, and feted as the senior members of the family, respected and listened to and not told to take a hike.

This is just an example, but I think it helps to explain the gap between any government's adhearance to something as ephermeral as "Family Values". Of course the family values referred to are man and woman, in marriage, having some, but not too many as to cause a population explosion, kids.

No-one, of course, fits into this blueprint and so when things deviate from this crazed "utopia", politicians have problems. It seems to them, simpler to devise policy around a one size fits all idea, as long as the size is mommy, daddy and 2-3 kids. If it's mommy mommy, adopted son, living in rented accommodation with four friends in a commune, then their system falls apart utterly.

Tax incentives, marriage person's allowances, family credits and so forth, are all attempts at playing the social engineering role. And could really be thrown away altogether. My utopia would be to throw marriage out utterly as a state concept. Religions have their own (possibly arbitrary) rules, (me I'm an atheist so I wouldn't really want to get into it) that mean much to their followers (Although the anglican faith is getting itself into a right pickle over gay bishops!).

If we replace marriage in the state's eyes with civil unions for everyone, people can still have elaborate wedding ceremonies, people can have Catholic marriages, Hindu marriages, humanist marriages etc, that fit with whatever belief system and rules they adhere to, but get the state the hell out of the way. It is, crucially, surely about love and an public expression of commitment. Not a public expression of sexuality, or more importantly NOT an expression of an example that you want to set for others to follow.

Why should there be any difference to the state if someone is living together with someone else unmarried, or even, in a three-way union for those that want?

Of course this family stuff, is still invading everything. I notice that Dean was being pillored in the press for not having his wife with him on the stump. How backward and frankly sexist is that? And then, he feels (to get the southern traditional vote or something) he and she have to give in to this and she starts appearing alongside him. It's nuts. I much preferred the earlier comments from his partner along the lines of "good for him if he wants to do it, I've got a lot of other stuff to be getting on with for now".

There is something so attrocious about seeing "wives" pulled along behind their husbands.

So to end this rather long ramble. I ask, how far in terms of years do you think America is from having:

a comfirmed and proud atheist
a gay man
a gay woman
an openly bisexual person

(or any combination thereof)

as president?

(I would have put "woman" as well but if the democrats don't do it this time, Hillary will be pres in 2008!)

;)

Pseudonym
Jan 22, 2004, 08:49 AM
So to end this rather long ramble. I ask, how far in terms of years do you think America is from having:

a comfirmed and proud atheist
a gay man
a gay woman
an openly bisexual person

(or any combination thereof)

as president?


Man, what a question! I think a long, long time. OK I'm an outsider, but it seems to me that religion still plays a pretty big part in US politics. How many Baptist presidents have you guys had recently?

I reckon the first to happen would be the atheist as it probably hits on less prejudices.

agreenster
Jan 22, 2004, 10:22 AM
Geeez, aren't these threads getting a bit old?

grouse
Jan 22, 2004, 10:42 AM
You may be in your twenties, but I don't consider 35 as OLD!

Honestly

Or is that not what you meant?

You talking about the topic, right?

Ooops.

Anyway, with these sort of questions, it's always good to get an up-to-date feel on these things, to see if anything is moving on.

Whaddya reckons?

12 years to the first Atheist, Liberal, Bisexual, but single president?

Pseudonym
Jan 22, 2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by grouse
You may be in your twenties, but I don't consider 35 as OLD!

Honestly

Or is that not what you meant?

You talking about the topic, right?

Ooops.

Anyway, with these sort of questions, it's always good to get an up-to-date feel on these things, to see if anything is moving on.

Whaddya reckons?

12 years to the first Atheist, Liberal, Bisexual, but single president?

I'm 34 and I consider 35 as really old:D

rueyeet
Jan 22, 2004, 11:05 AM
A discussion never get old until everyone agrees on the topic of discussion. That's when it gets boring.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
If marriage is a religious institution, remove all bureaucratic benefits of marriage from it and let each religion decide whom they'd like to include into their little clubs.

Offer the bureaucratic benefits of marriage to every couple in terms of a civil union.

A heterosexual couple getting married in a Catholic church would receive no recognition from the state until they completed their civil union forms.

A homosexual couple getting married in a Unitarian church would receive recognition from the state once they completed their civil union forms.

This is basic separation of church and state and the conservatives would get their homophobic churches to refrain from blessing gay marriages if they wanted, but it wouldn't effect whether or not benefits were granted.

Why is this so hard?

That makes SO much more sense. If marriage is a sanctified, holy institution defined as the union of a man and a woman for the production of children as ordained by God, then marriage by definition has no place in our laws, under the separation of church and state. Everyone can just get a civil union, and then the religious minded can go to their favorite flavor of church and get the blessing of whatever vision of God they follow, and leave the rest of us out of it.

This whole issue makes me so angry: the semantics-wrangling of saying that straight people can have a "marriage", but gay people may have to make do with a "civil union"; not to mention the idea that marriage even really started with religion anyway. Marriage in Western culture for the last several centuries before the 1900s was much more about property, and ensuring an heir, than it was about any sanctification of a couple's love. Anybody ever heard of dowries?

One of the grandest coups of the Republican think-tanks was when they hit upon the idea of selling their conservative politics under the euphemism of Family Values. They then matched their definition of Family Values to those of their core conservative constituency, ignoring the rest of the nation, and reaped the votes of the credulous like endless waves of grain. Meanwhile, the conservative politicians also cheat on their wives, get divorced, and generally step all over real family values.

Ack. gotta step off that soapbox again. grrrrr.

grouse
Jan 22, 2004, 11:24 AM
One of the grandest coups of the Republican think-tanks was when they hit upon the idea of selling their conservative politics under the euphemism of Family Values

And the same thing happened over here, with a succession of initially Conservative and then Labour, (under the leadership of Mr Blair) prime ministers.

The most amusing episode was when John Major tried to climb up onto that particular wagon and it turned out that half his ministers were having affairs, or some such thing. France has the right idea about that, the formal divorce of religion and state, and the result, most ministers are thought rather strange if they DON'T have affairs!

In the UK the air has changed in the right direction with regards to openly gay ministers and MPs, the majority of people have grown up finally and just do not regard it as an issue. Although the whole Christian Socialist thing does make our PM prone to sermonising a la George w.

rainman::|:|
Jan 22, 2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Geeez, aren't these threads getting a bit old?

I have little doubt that Dr. King was told once or twice that his anti-segregationalist rhetoric was "getting a bit old"...

I'll gladly stop talking about the subject at hand so much, when I have the legal rights promised to me by the constitution, stripped away by Christians.

paul

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 22, 2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Geeez, aren't these threads getting a bit old?

As long as we hav e people like Bush trying to push their religious agenda in the political arena topics as these will not get old. Courts have started to realize that there is no LEGAL justification for same sex unions, as long as the State is going to license any union between two people. And as long as such a union gives LEGAL rights that can not be shared by any two people regardless of their sexes.

If there is a Constitutional amendment that states a marriage is between a man and woman, I think the current Supreme Court will see it as what it is a sanctioning of the religious concept of marriage; and there by violating the separation of church and state.

Keep in mind what I and others want are the same LEGAL rights provided to men and women that marry. We are not trying to force ANY church to recognize such a a union. If my partner of 11 years and I can not enjoy the same legal/governmental rights as any man/woman marriage then there is a flaw in the system.

Frohickey
Jan 22, 2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Fukui
Think of it from the other way around: You are born in a country where everyone is Gay (yea yea hypothetical I know), and you as a straight person wanna only be around women, but none of them wanna be around you cause your so "obnormal,"

That sounds so much like a ST:TNG episode, the one with the original lady in "The A-Team".

themadchemist
Jan 23, 2004, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by bwawn
themadchemist, I would like to commend you for such a mature, rational, logical stand for such an important issue. I support every bit of your argument almost 100%. Actually, though, it is true that gay men do engage in sexual activity with more partners on the average than heterosexual men. This isn't to say that a gay man can be serious and be sexual with only one other person, but on the average, gay men have more partners than heterosexual individuals. Interestingly, on the average, homosexual women have far fewer partners than homosexual men or heterosexuals. Also, if you were to break down the amount of sexual activity various couples engage in, you would find that -- once again, on the average -- homosexual female couples engage in very little sexual activity, heterosexual couples engage in a fair amount of sexual activity, and homosexual male couples engage in the most sexual activity. Because of testosterone and other factors, homosexual males have far more partners and engage in far more sexual activity than most other individuals. (The statistics on heterosexual couples symbolizes a sexual "compromise" of sorts and the statistics on homosexual females shows the sexual nature of the common female. Stereotypes of men being more into sex are very much true, and as much as I hate to admit that as a man, it's been proven.) There are studies that support this -- you can Google for them. I am very much a liberal and extremely pro-gay rights, but I thought you'd be interested to know these statistics from studies I have heard about.

But once again, I would like to commend you for your extremely well-thought arguments. You seem to be young based on your profile -- almost three years younger than me -- but your ability to think rationally are above and beyond the ability of those governing us, regardless of party affiliation. At least, after suffering through the State of the Union, I stick by that praise.

Ah, well, you're embarrassing me. ;) Thanks, though. I very much appreciate the vote of confidence.

On your point about testosterone levels. That makes a great deal of sense and since you can give me a legitimate, scientific reason that seems to conform well to the three types of non-transgendered relationships (somehow I feel those get quite a bit more complicated), I'll happily accept the data. I'm wary about statistics, sometimes, and I feel that on this issue, more than many, some may have interest in skewing particular numbers so that they better adhere to a particular model of morality. However, your point is rational and, as I said, logical enough that I'll take it at face value.

I would argue that there are some people in government, particularly those who avoid showing their faces to the public, who are quite brilliant. Others, though, like our illustrious president, many of his cohorts, and a fair number of his competitors, could understandably call into question our confidence in the wisdom of the powers that be. While in some cases this is out of legitimate short-sightedness, it may be argued that some of this apparent stupidity is more the by-product of the "dumbing down" of politics for easy consumption by the masses. The problem with a representative democracy like ours is that issues are boiled down to the lowest common denominator, or, at best, as much as can be contained in a 30 second ad. The finer points of policy are forgotten, because the collective citizenry does not think with subtlety. It is unfortunate, but I do not see much of a remedy for that.

Counterfit
Jan 23, 2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
stripped away by Christians.

paul I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that not all Christians helped, and many indeed do support marriage for homosexuals. I know paul knows that, but I think it was important to clarify :)

rainman::|:|
Jan 23, 2004, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Counterfit
I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that not all Christians helped, and many indeed do support marriage for homosexuals. I know paul knows that, but I think it was important to clarify :)

Exactly right.... it's like those circle diagrams. Not all christians are anti-gay, but [almost] all anti-gay are Christians. So they get lumped together, often. But i do respect those true christians that do not inflict their religious dogma onto others, especially through legislation.

paul

Pseudonym
Jan 23, 2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
but [almost] all anti-gay are Christians.
paul

Islam isn't too hot on it either.

Counterfit
Jan 23, 2004, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
Exactly right.... it's like those circle diagrams. Not all christians are anti-gay, but [almost] all anti-gay are Christians. So they get lumped together, often. But i do respect those true christians that do not inflict their religious dogma onto others, especially through legislation.

paul Those would be Venn diagrams :D

agreenster
Jan 23, 2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
I have little doubt that Dr. King was told once or twice that his anti-segregationalist rhetoric was "getting a bit old"...

paul

Your analogy to Dr. King is extremely offensive to African Americans and their ordeal over the last 200 years. They went through about, oh 1000x more hardships than your whiny ass has ever dreamed of.

Have some perspective.

agreenster
Jan 23, 2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
But i do respect those true christians that do not inflict their religious dogma onto others, especially through legislation.

paul

You know, I'm no religious person. But I would wager to say that if Jesus were alive today, he would be hanging out in gay bars. Most Christians would probably deny that. However, its true that he probably would, similar to how he was always socialized with sinners, prostitutes, and the outcast peoples.

But the motive is always left out. He tried to help them, clean them up, and tell them to go and sin no more.

You need to be careful when you attack specific religious groups for what they believe. You attacking them is pretty hypocritical. They firmly believe what they believe, and you believe what you believe. It is written in the Bible that homosexuality is an "abomination," (Romans 1:26-32,Leviticus 18:22,Leviticus 20:13-gotta luv google) and telling a Christian that the Bible is wrong is the same as someone telling you that homosexuality is wrong.

You'll always disagree. And saying "true Christians" are the ones who accept homosexuality as normal are actually speaking against what the Bible says.

So basically, live your life, try to get along with people, and dont go around attacking specific groups for what they believe if you dont expected to get attacked back.

Rower_CPU
Jan 23, 2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by agreenster
Your analogy to Dr. King is extremely offensive to African Americans and their ordeal over the last 200 years. They went through about, oh 1000x more hardships than your whiny ass has ever dreamed of.

Have some perspective.

Just because someone hasn't suffered as much doesn't mean they should go on suffering to achieve the same level of tolerance.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

jayscheuerle
Jan 23, 2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by agreenster
You know, I'm no religious person. But I would wager to say that if Jesus were alive today, he would be hanging out in gay bars.

Oh my GOD!!

That hair!! Those clothes!! Jesus, honey, you need a MAKEOVER!!!

:D

agreenster
Jan 23, 2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Just because someone hasn't suffered as much doesn't mean they should go on suffering to achieve the same level of tolerance.


Yeah, but where does it end?

Rower_CPU
Jan 23, 2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Yeah, but where does it end?

What? Achieving tolerance?

jayscheuerle
Jan 23, 2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
So basically, live your life, try to get along with people, and dont go around attacking specific groups for what they believe if you dont expected to get attacked back.

I can't figure out if you're defensively sticking up for the poor picked-upon Christians or magnanimously attacking them for what they do to groups like gays and pro-choicers...

agreenster
Jan 23, 2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
What? Achieving tolerance?

The whining. Everyone sufferes because of discrimination everyday. I guess I just understand what the big deal is about gays being accpeted? Is it ALL about being allowed to get married? If G.W. signed a bill tomorrow to allow gays to get married would it all be done? Somehow I dont think so. I think it has more to do with gays demanding that each person "accept them" and the truth is it will never happen. (thats what I meant by all of the above posts)

So basically, get over it.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
I can't figure out if you're defensively sticking up for the poor picked-upon Christians or magnanimously attacking them for what they do to groups like gays and pro-choicers...

Im not standing up for anyone or anything, just stating that the fight will never end, (due to unreconcilable differences) and people should just shut up about trivial things like this. I guess I just feel there are far more important things to exert our time and energy towards.

So what. A lot of people dont like you. Join the club and lets stop the killing overseas and in our neighborhoods.

jayscheuerle
Jan 23, 2004, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
So what. A lot of people dont like you.

Are you nuts? Everyone likes me. I'm ******** GREAT!! :D

jayscheuerle
Jan 23, 2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
... people should just shut up about trivial things like this. I guess I just feel there are far more important things to exert our time and energy towards.


I'd imagine that if I were gay, I wouldn't consider my lack of rights to be a trivial manner. As a matter of fact, the boneheaded mess our Idiot King has gotten us into in the Middle East would seem a lot more trivial to me than my inability to have my personal relationships given their due respect by the government.

agreenster
Jan 23, 2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Are you nuts? Everyone likes me. I'm ******** GREAT!! :D

sorry. I use "you" generically.

sethypoo
Jan 23, 2004, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by agreenster

So basically, live your life, try to get along with people, and dont go around attacking specific groups for what they believe if you dont expected to get attacked back.

Amen to that.

We all need to think "live and let live" a little more.

Why all these debates? Are they really nesscessary? We're all created different, and we need to accept that fact that none of us is God and we can't change the way others want to be.

agreenster
Jan 23, 2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
I'd imagine that if I were gay, I wouldn't consider my lack of rights to be a trivial manner. As a matter of fact, the boneheaded mess our Idiot King has gotten us into in the Middle East would seem a lot more trivial to me than my inability to have my personal relationships given their due respect by the government.

Okay, this proves my point.

First off, what rights? What right do I have that you (gay people) dont? The right to get married? If thats all, then MAN what a waste of time. Besides, dont gays get married all the time? Rosie has a litter of children! How will having it sanctioned by the US government make any difference? Is this about a tax break?

Second, I dont call the killing of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of people trivial. And I'm not talking about The mid-east solely. Our neighborhoods are war zones. I cant believe the lack of education, civility, and morals in our society--and the height of sensless violnece, murder, and disrespect lurking in every corner.

That kind of stuff makes laws about Johnny and Jimmy getting married seem trivial.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 23, 2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Your analogy to Dr. King is extremely offensive to African Americans and their ordeal over the last 200 years. They went through about, oh 1000x more hardships than your whiny ass has ever dreamed of.

Have some perspective.

The lessons learned from those hardships should be what we try to avoid. I doubt that many that truely followed Rev. King's Civil Rights Movement would find offense.

jayscheuerle
Jan 23, 2004, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Okay, this proves my point.

First off, what rights? What right do I have that you (gay people) dont? The right to get married? If thats all, then MAN what a waste of time. Besides, dont gays get married all the time? Rosie has a litter of children! How will having it sanctioned by the US government make any difference? Is this about a tax break?

Second, I dont call the killing of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of people trivial. And I'm not talking about The mid-east solely. Our neighborhoods are war zones. I cant believe the lack of education, civility, and morals in our society--and the height of sensless violnece, murder, and disrespect lurking in every corner.

That kind of stuff makes laws about Johnny and Jimmy getting married seem trivial.

It's simply about the respect of being treated as equals. All rights. Marriage may be just a word, but having a union recognized is more than just about tax issues. It's legal recognition for wills, property, children, etc. My wife and I had a daughter (pop!). Our friends had to go to Asia several times at thousands of dollars a pop to adopt and even then only one of them can be listed as the "parent". The adoption cannot be made by a gay couple, just a single adult. That's not equal, fair or trivial.

These are personal issues affecting people directly. It's not something awful you see thousands of miles away happening on TV. Frankly, lack of education and civility are the very things holding back the granting of rights for homosexuals. Unlike Iraq, gays didn't go looking for this problem. They didn't create it.

Yes, localized violence is a problem in this country. We have plenty here, but it isn't something that I live in fear of and it certainly doesn't affect my day to day.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 23, 2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Okay, this proves my point.

First off, what rights? What right do I have that you (gay people) dont? The right to get married? If thats all, then MAN what a waste of time. Besides, dont gays get married all the time? Rosie has a litter of children! How will having it sanctioned by the US government make any difference? Is this about a tax break?


What about not living in fear for losing ones job or housing, just because of who you sleep with?

What about getting health insurance from your spouses employer when you have none?

What about you being able to make healthcare decisions when your spouse can not make them for themselves?

What about the simple transfer your spouses property to you when they die?

What about you and your spouse being able to get a mortgage without all the hoops of two unrelated people trying for the same mortgage?

What about lower car insurance for married couples?

There are too many things that married people get to enjoy, that gay couples in the same situation do not.

And a tax break? From what I understand that married couples pay still more taxes than if they were to file as a single.

Why should any two same sex people NOT have the benefits that married people have if they are in a committed relationship?

agreenster
Jan 23, 2004, 02:44 PM
>>What about not living in fear for losing ones job or housing, just because of who you sleep with?

C'mon. Does that really happen? Gay tenants are some of the best. Trust me, landlords take your check no matter who your lover is. And if gay people cant get work, then no gay people have jobs? Hmm. Most of them have better jobs that I do.

>>What about getting health insurance from your spouses employer when you have none?

My wife has insurance through her work and it cant cover me, her husband. So looks like we're in the same boat.

>>What about you being able to make healthcare decisions when your spouse can not make them for themselves?

I went to the hospital recently (mono, sheesh), and I could make whoever I wanted the decision-maker by signing a little piece of paper, no matter who it was. They didnt have to be related.

>>What about the simple transfer your spouses property to you when they die?

Thats what a will is for.

>>What about you and your spouse being able to get a mortgage without all the hoops of two unrelated people trying for the same mortgage?

Bummer. Sucks to be gay.

>>What about lower car insurance for married couples?

My wife and I have seperate policies, because its cheaper. What are you talking about?

>>There are too many things that married people get to enjoy, that gay couples in the same situation do not.

Name one.

Face it, this is about acceptance in a world where people think being gay is wrong. Like it or not.

jayscheuerle
Jan 23, 2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Face it, this is about acceptance in a world where people think being gay is wrong. Like it or not.

And do you notice that the same people who have a hard time with this are the children and grandchildren of people who had time thinking of blacks as even being "people". Wanna bet they had an issue with women working as well?

You think violence is a problem in this country? Ignorance is far worse...

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 23, 2004, 03:50 PM
To agreenster:

First it appears that we may never sway each other to see each others side. The key to understanding is that this issue a civil matter. No one is trying change any churches belief systems through legal action. Most churches have a process for that.


Now to some of your last points:

>>What about not living in fear for losing ones job or housing, just because of who you sleep with?

C'mon. Does that really happen? Gay tenants are some of the best. Trust me, landlords take your check no matter who your lover is. And if gay people cant get work, then no gay people have jobs? Hmm. Most of them have better jobs that I do.

-- Believe it or not it does happen. In major metro areas there is a smaller concern for this, but it does exsist.

I guess one way out is to deny ones own self. Or as African-Americans found so many yeras ago, lets not get too "uppitty"

>>What about getting health insurance from your spouses employer when you have none?

My wife has insurance through her work and it cant cover me, her husband. So looks like we're in the same boat.

-- Don't know what company your wife works for; but in my 20+ years I NEVER saw a company that did not offer a fmaily option in health coverage.

>>What about you being able to make healthcare decisions when your spouse can not make them for themselves?

I went to the hospital recently (mono, sheesh), and I could make whoever I wanted the decision-maker by signing a little piece of paper, no matter who it was. They didnt have to be related.

-- Situtaion is that if you were not married, and listed your girlfriend as the decision-maker, your family could have superceeded your wishes and hers.

>>What about the simple transfer your spouses property to you when they die?

Thats what a will is for.

-- Probate courts have rules of sucession for those with and with out wills. Too many courts have overed ruled "gay' wills to defer to "traditional" family sucession rights

>>What about you and your spouse being able to get a mortgage without all the hoops of two unrelated people trying for the same mortgage?

Bummer. Sucks to be gay.

-- Since you first brought up the issue of insult to the African-American community, the same words were uttered by far too many whites 40 to 50 years ago (if not more recently).

We are talking about a nation that states every one is created equal. It took almost 200 years for us to understand that the color of ones skin does not make them unequal.

Again I state that you have to divorce religious beliefs from civil responsibility.

>>What about lower car insurance for married couples?

My wife and I have seperate policies, because its cheaper. What are you talking about?

-- Depending on your insurance company married couples can have lower insurance rates. Even a married individual that has solo insurance because the tables show married people are better drivers.

No such table exists for same sex couples.

>>There are too many things that married people get to enjoy, that gay couples in the same situation do not.

Name one.

-- You missed many of the other points then. This was more of a closing statement.

What i did notice was that you totally over looked the "marriage penalty tax". Until Congress does something about this why would I or anyone else want to pay more taxes? It is called civil responsibility. The additional taxes we would pay are far less than what we would pay a lawyer to accomplish what comes with a marriage certificate issued by the GOVERNMENT. The government does not recognize certificates by themselves from churches. the government requires that one get a "state' license. That is where the issue is coming from.

You stated "Face it, this is about acceptance in a world where people think being gay is wrong. Like it or not.". It is not about acceptance,. You may feel that homosexuality is wrong. Just as those in the 40's, 50's and 60's felt that mixing of races were wrong.

The Bill of Rights does not make s distinction between religious verses civil rights. It is supposed to provide equal rights to all people. Not just the people we agree with.

When it comes to the law of the land we can not pick and choose who we will allow the basic rights and laws that exist. Have we not learned anything from the Civil Rights movement in the 50's and 60's?

And let me add that as a pre-theology student in the 70's; it is a fallacy to look at the religious writings as the true word of God. They were the word of God as written by Man/Woman to fit their own needs and conceptions of their times.

Don't believe me? The testaments speak in what some can consider to be positive terms about slaves. How can the churches reconcile that?

As someone already stated, unless we eliminate all civil benefits for couples to marry, then marriage has no place in a governmental role. There will always be the churches to sanctify that union, so a man and woman do not have to live in sin.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 23, 2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
And do you notice that the same people who have a hard time with this are the children and grandchildren of people who had time thinking of blacks as even being "people". Wanna bet they had an issue with women working as well?

You think violence is a problem in this country? Ignorance is far worse...

It is interesting that mention that. My Mom was among many women that went work during the WWII effort. She worked in a "spinner" factory (the nose cones for the props on the fighters of the time).

She was one of the "traditional" women of the time. After the war she took her place in the "retail" sector. She and my Dad married in 1956. She became a "housewife". It was not till the 70's (due to the economy) that she returned to work. And it was because of here return the workforce that she learned how to drive. Keep in mind that during her time it was the responsibility of the "man" to drive her to and from.

My how times have changed....

Les Kern
Jan 23, 2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Fukui
.... forced to follow what the government says is how they should be wed...I don't understand it.

Odd how the GOP say's "Those things should be decided by the states", then Ashcroft, for instance, forces the states to "ramp up" the deaths of those given the ultimate penalty, or by god you'll get no money from us, lots of times based on christian teachings or at least an interpretation of same. Oh MAN how I can go on, and on, and on.
Beware of all fundamentalists.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 23, 2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern
Odd how the GOP say's "Those things should be decided by the states", then Ashcroft, for instance, forces the states to "ramp up" the deaths of those given the ultimate penalty, or by god you'll get no money from us, lots of times based on christian teachings or at least an interpretation of same. Oh MAN how I can go on, and on, and on.
Beware of all fundamentalists.

I guess we can look at "an eye for an eye" or maybe "do unto others as you would want done unto you" for guidance.

Of course how you want to look at the word of God....