|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Apr 18, 2006, 2:01 PM
Post #101 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: In reply to: Oh wait. That's basically evil and abhorrent. I hope you're getting the picture, here. No, not really. I can see that you're playing an irrelevant race card to try to win an argument which is making you look increasingly foolish though.
Because equating being gay with your ability to write a book is a natural and logical comparison??
In reply to: Black people have no choice but to be black. Homosexuals do have a choice about whether to get married.
So does that mean that if black people had a choice about whether or not to be black, they would choose to be white? And actually, homosexuals do not currently have a choice about whether or not to get married, as federal law prohibits such. But heterosexuals do...
In reply to: I notice you completely ignored my comment that rights require qualification, whcih is not surprising considering you can't tell the difference between being black and being gay.
Then please, share with us your definition of 'qualification.' Because your argument is looking pretty irrational at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Apr 18, 2006, 2:03 PM
Post #102 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: In reply to: Oh wait. That's basically evil and abhorrent. I hope you're getting the picture, here. No, not really. I can see that you're playing an irrelevant race card to try to win an argument which is making you look increasingly foolish though. Black people have no choice but to be black. Homosexuals do have a choice about whether to get married. I notice you completely ignored my comment that rights require qualification, whcih is not surprising considering you can't tell the difference between being black and being gay.
Blonde_loves_bolts mostly had this covered, but I'm going to respond anyway.
Your point about race versus sexual orientation are ridiculous. I guess black people and white people do have a choice about whether to get married. The logic applies in the same way.
And rights do need some qualification, it's just that you believe that gay people are somehow undeserving of the rights that you would claim for yourself.
For you, this is some kind of little game, wherein keeping gays from having equal treatment under the law earns you some points somewhere, but for lots of people, me included, that attitude and the long history of antagonistic prejudice that comes along with it, is doing direct harm to people I care about.
You're hurting people. Don't forget that that's what this is about. Getting your way means having people suffer needlessly.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Apr 18, 2006, 2:04 PM
Post #103 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Of course, by 'newly thought up rights,' you mean rights currently enjoyed only by heterosexual people. Anyone who thinks marriage has been the same for thousands of years is at best ill-informed. Only heterosexual people? How "newspeak" of you. :lol: No doubt the exact definition has shifted over the milleniums, but has there been a time when it involved a union that wasn't between a man and a woman? c.f. pederastical system of Greece
You mean pedophilia?
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Apr 18, 2006, 2:10 PM
Post #104 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Of course, by 'newly thought up rights,' you mean rights currently enjoyed only by heterosexual people. Anyone who thinks marriage has been the same for thousands of years is at best ill-informed. Only heterosexual people? How "newspeak" of you. :lol: No doubt the exact definition has shifted over the milleniums, but has there been a time when it involved a union that wasn't between a man and a woman? c.f. pederastical system of Greece You mean pedophilia?
Yes, I mean pedophilia. I didn't say they were all good systems, but then, marrying very young girls to older men wasn't that awesome an idea by modern standards either, nor the system of prima nocte common in medieval europe (just part of traditional marriage at the time, you understand).
Then again, given the divorce rate, our modern idea of marriage isn't working out so hot, either.
It's a damned funny thing that the state most amenable to gay marriage has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Apr 18, 2006, 2:17 PM
Post #106 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: In reply to: And rights do need some qualification, it's just that you believe that gay people are somehow undeserving of the rights that you would claim for yourself. I don't claim them, I qualify for them. You want the qualifications changed? Ask whoever set them. In the case of marriage, that's the church, and they've said no. Like I said before, why don't homosexuals just make up their own institution? They've been told no. Why not just accept it and build something of their own?
Maybe you're just unfamiliar with law in the US, but it ain't the church you have to go to for a marriage license.
As to your last question, it's because it's prejudice and discrimination.
We tried separate but equal before. It doesn't turn out very equal.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Apr 18, 2006, 2:23 PM
Post #107 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: it's prejudice and discrimination.
It's no more prejudice and discrimination than my not being able to be homosexual. I just don't qualify.
In reply to: We tried separate but equal before. It doesn't turn out very equal.
Really? When was that?
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Apr 18, 2006, 2:27 PM
Post #108 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: In reply to: And rights do need some qualification, it's just that you believe that gay people are somehow undeserving of the rights that you would claim for yourself. I don't claim them, I qualify for them.
This isn't a discussion about applying for a bank loan - it's about human rights and civil liberties. You don't present you demographics to a higher power to see which rights you're eligible for.
In reply to: You want the qualifications changed? Ask whoever set them. In the case of marriage, that's the church, and they've said no.
The church is not the state, and vice versa; the state is the one responsible for protecting its citizens, which should not be contingent on how loudly the marginalized groups make their case heard. But since we (well, some of us) live in reality, what happens when the governing entity, which is comprised of humans, not higher forces, sanctions inequality regardless of changes in circumstance? Who do you 'talk' to then??
In reply to: Like I said before, why don't homosexuals just make up their own institution? They've been told no. Why not just accept it and build something of their own?
Pray (for lack of a better word) you tell us what kind of an institution this would be? And what kind of authority it would have??
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Apr 18, 2006, 2:33 PM
Post #109 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: In reply to: And rights do need some qualification, it's just that you believe that gay people are somehow undeserving of the rights that you would claim for yourself. I don't claim them, I qualify for them. You want the qualifications changed? Ask whoever set them. In the case of marriage, that's the church, and they've said no. Like I said before, why don't homosexuals just make up their own institution? They've been told no. Why not just accept it and build something of their own?
Their own institution does not gain them access to the same equal treatment under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't think most gay couples that wish to wed are seeking the Pope's permission. They are asking the State of [Insert state name here] to recognize that they should have the same rights and privileges that all heterosexual married couples have under the laws of the state in which they live, work, pay taxes, vote, etc.
There has been a push for equal rights and treatment under the law in this county (and I would venture to say the rest of the civilized world) for quite some time. Look at the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments to just the US constitution (a document on which many other democratic nation's own constitution is based) to see the progression of this country slowly realizing that all men and women of whatever race should have the same rights as white men.
Sexual orientation is no different. The argument that homosexual marriage would crumble the foundation of such a great institution as is marriage is crap. What crumbles that foundation is people like Brittany Spears who get drunk and married in Las Vegas on Saturday night and annul it on Monday. That sort of shit happens all the time while gay couples who have been in loving, committed, monogamous relationships for decades can't see each other in the hospital when one is involved in a car wreck. They can't adopt children, they can't enjoy the same protection the laws of decent and distribution offers a surviving spouse, they can't walk down the street in most communities holding hands like I do with my wife without being verbally (and sometimes physically) assaulted.
Styndall and BLB are right, there is no justification for it. It is blind prejudice and it is wrong. And anyone who supports it is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Apr 18, 2006, 2:33 PM
Post #110 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: In reply to: it's prejudice and discrimination. It's no more prejudice and discrimination than my not being able to be homosexual. I just don't qualify.
That's at least an original explanation, concerning one's heterosexuality. Still, not being gay is one thing; using that explanation as a means of privileging the demographic(s) that you do fit into is another.
In reply to: In reply to: We tried separate but equal before. It doesn't turn out very equal. Really? When was that?
Plessy v. Ferguson until Brown v. Board of Education, in the legal sense, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Apr 18, 2006, 2:41 PM
Post #111 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: Plessy v. Ferguson until Brown v. Board of Education, in the legal sense, anyway.
Neither of those cases has anything to do with sexual orientation and they are therefore irrelevant.
In reply to: Pray (for lack of a better word) you tell us what kind of an institution this would be? And what kind of authority it would have??
Why are you asking me to set you up with an alternative to marriage? Why don't you do it yourself?
Ah, here's the truth: not only are you not going to accept that there could be an alternative, you're not even going to try. Instead you're going to keep crying for what you can't have.
What's your plan? Are you going to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals?
In reply to: They are asking the State of [Insert state name here] to recognize that they should have the same rights and privileges that all heterosexual married couples have under the laws of the state in which they live, work, pay taxes, vote, etc.
They can have all those rights with just a couple of pieces of paperwork and a brief visit to a lawyer.
But that's not what you really want, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Apr 18, 2006, 2:45 PM
Post #112 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Their own institution does not gain them access to the same equal treatment under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't think most gay couples that wish to wed are seeking the Pope's permission. They are asking the State of [Insert state name here] to recognize that they should have the same rights and privileges that all heterosexual married couples have under the laws of the state in which they live, work, pay taxes, vote, etc.
What's wrong with "civil unions"?
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Apr 18, 2006, 2:51 PM
Post #113 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: In reply to: They are asking the State of [Insert state name here] to recognize that they should have the same rights and privileges that all heterosexual married couples have under the laws of the state in which they live, work, pay taxes, vote, etc. But that's not what you really want, is it?
I am a lawyer, and will tell you that no, they cannot have the same rights with a brief visit to a lawyer and a couple of pieces of paper. There are certain rights, in several areas of the law, that a spouse has by virtue of legislation than cannot be by-passed by contract.
In reply to: But that's not what you really want, is it?
I'm not sure exactly what this means. I have no hidden agenda. I have no homosexual friends that are more than just distant acquaintences (not by choice, just by circumstance). I am a white, Christian, heterosexual, married man. But above all that I am a human being. Certain things are inherently wrong regardless of what some book says. Denying equal treatment under the law of man (not God's law) solely by reason of one's sexual orientation is wrong. Your belief in your God and how he/she will treat homosexuals has nothing to do with whether or not the state of Tennessee will grant a marriage certificate to a couple of dudes.
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Apr 18, 2006, 2:54 PM
Post #114 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: In reply to: Plessy v. Ferguson until Brown v. Board of Education, in the legal sense, anyway. Neither of those cases has anything to do with sexual orientation and they are therefore irrelevant.
But again, your comparison of literary aptitude to gays being allowed to marry HAS relevance??
Let's not forget that history repeats itself, though the details and demographics may change. The idea of 'separate but equal' has been proven to be unequal. That time it was about race, currently it seems to be about sexual orientation.
In reply to: In reply to: Pray (for lack of a better word) you tell us what kind of an institution this would be? And what kind of authority it would have?? Why are you asking me to set you up with an alternative to marriage? Why don't you do it yourself? Ah, here's the truth: not only are you not going to accept that there could be an alternative, you're not even going to try. Instead you're going to keep crying for what you can't have.
Those blinders that surround your eyes must really be starting to chafe. At this point, an 'alternative' is not going to solve anything. This is why the secular institution must modify current policy.
In reply to: What's your plan? Are you going to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals?
Do you know how to read?? I just said that SECULAR marriage reinforces the separation of church and state PRECISELY because churches never have to perform a ceremony that they don't want to. Because we're talking about an institution whose originating concepts may have been based on non-secular roots, but that carries much more weight in the legal arena today.
In reply to: In reply to: They are asking the State of [Insert state name here] to recognize that they should have the same rights and privileges that all heterosexual married couples have under the laws of the state in which they live, work, pay taxes, vote, etc. They can have all those rights with just a couple of pieces of paperwork and a brief visit to a lawyer.
Wrong. The legal and economic privileges associated with marriage are unique to it and cannot be achieved by visiting a lawyer, writing a will and exchanging power of attorney. If it were that simple, this debate probably wouldn't exist. Even in states that have near 'marriage equivalents' like California, the union is null and void once you cross the state line. The secular institution of marriage is more powerful than you think.
Honestly, I could give a shit what politically correct term could be used to describe secular marriage. What matters are the legal rights; the climate has to adapt accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Apr 18, 2006, 2:55 PM
Post #115 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: In reply to: Their own institution does not gain them access to the same equal treatment under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't think most gay couples that wish to wed are seeking the Pope's permission. They are asking the State of [Insert state name here] to recognize that they should have the same rights and privileges that all heterosexual married couples have under the laws of the state in which they live, work, pay taxes, vote, etc. What's wrong with "civil unions"?
I could spend all day citing examples of law that reference "spouse" and the legal rights that spouse has under the law. Civil Unions are okay, if thay is what heterosexual couple who wish to unite are forced to seek. Then we could spend countless dollars amending each individual law replacing the word "spouse" with "partner" and it would apply to everyone. It wouldn't bother me.
Or, we could simple define marriage to mean the legal union of two consenting adults.
And don't resort to the dumbass argument of "Where do we stop? Next thing you know people will want to marry a goat."
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Apr 18, 2006, 2:57 PM
Post #116 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: In reply to: Their own institution does not gain them access to the same equal treatment under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't think most gay couples that wish to wed are seeking the Pope's permission. They are asking the State of [Insert state name here] to recognize that they should have the same rights and privileges that all heterosexual married couples have under the laws of the state in which they live, work, pay taxes, vote, etc. What's wrong with "civil unions"?
Nothing would be wrong, if civil unions were recognized at the federal level and enforceable in all 50 states, along with carrying the same economic and legal privileges as marriage. The word 'marriage' plays too significant a role and is easily misconstrued on both sides of the debate due to its non-secular connotations.
Edited to add: In addition to what wjca brought up about legal language, the eventual overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act would probably bring us back to redefining secular marriage out of continuity and [relative] simplicity. But again, I think there is too much emphasis on the word and not enough on the institution it represents.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Apr 18, 2006, 2:58 PM
Post #117 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: There are certain rights, in several areas of the law, that a spouse has by virtue of legislation than cannot be by-passed by contract.
Such as?
In reply to: I'm not sure exactly what this means.
Yes, I bet you don't. Tell you what: if I offered homosexuals all the rights that heterosexual couples have - which they have at the moment - except the right to get married in a church and call their union a marriage, would they accept it?
Not in a million years, and you know it.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Apr 18, 2006, 3:00 PM
Post #118 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: Yes, I bet you don't. Tell you what: if I offered homosexuals all the rights that heterosexual couples have - which they have at the moment - except the right to get married in a church and call their union a marriage, would they accept it? Not in a million years, and you know it.
This is some bizarre fantasy of yours. There is currently no legal anything that allows a gay couple the same rights in the same places and, most especially, with the same degree of durability as a legal marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Apr 18, 2006, 3:06 PM
Post #120 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: Tell you what: if I offered homosexuals all the rights that heterosexual couples have - which they have at the moment - except the right to get married in a church and call their union a marriage, would they accept it? Not in a million years, and you know it.
What rock do you live under?? Gay marriage is banned at the federal level in America, meaning any measures passed or amendments made at the state level in support of gay unions end at the state line. Some states are pushing to ban civil unions as well. There are literally thousands of differences between even the most progressive civil union and actual marriage at the moment. And need I remind that even the 'simple visit to the lawyer' costs thousands of dollars and is still contestable in court?
Your assumption is that gays are trying to overtake all that is traditional and holy. You might want to challenge that with fact from time to time.
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Apr 18, 2006, 3:09 PM
Post #121 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: In reply to: At this point, an 'alternative' is not going to solve anything. How do you know? You're refusing to even think about it, let alone actually try it to see if it works! :lol:
No, I've seen the present alternative and it's not an acceptable one. Creating another one is not going to solve anything. I'd refer you to some court cases regarding previous 'alternatives' that had similar social and legal consequences, but you don't seem interested in looking at race and sexual orientation in a similar light. So in lieu of that, I guess you're just going to have to take my word for it.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Apr 18, 2006, 3:10 PM
Post #122 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: In reply to: There are certain rights, in several areas of the law, that a spouse has by virtue of legislation than cannot be by-passed by contract. Such as?
Under the law of most every state a surviving spouse has the right to elect against the estate of his or her deceased spouse. What this means is that there is no possible way to completely write your spouse out of your will. The surviving spouse, by law, will receive a share of the estate.
If someone dies without a will (i.e. intestate), the laws of intestacy will provide the surviving spouse with a certain percentage of the estate.
Under ERISA, a participant cannot make certain changes to the named beneficiary of most pension plans without the express written consent of the participant's spouse.
The presence of a spouse in a meeting I have with a client does not taint the protection of confidentiality of the attorney/client privilege. The presence of anyone else (other than my secretary or paralegal or other attorney in my firm) does.
Unless you are legally married, you cannot file a federal or state income tax return as "married, filing jointly". Depending on the individual situation, this has certain tax disadvantages.
You can make unlimited lifetime gifts to a spouse without any federal or state gift tax consequences and without using any of your unified credit.
At death, you can pass an unlimited amount of assets to a surviving spouse without any federal or state estate tax consequences and without using any of your unified credit.
These are just off the top of my head in the areas law in which I am familiar. The list is likely endless.
Edited to add:
In reply to: Yes, I bet you don't. Tell you what: if I offered homosexuals all the rights that heterosexual couples have - which they have at the moment - except the right to get married in a church and call their union a marriage, would they accept it? Not in a million years, and you know it.
I have no idea what homosexuals would accept and what they wouldn't. All I know is that the way the system is now is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Apr 18, 2006, 3:12 PM
Post #123 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
oh good lord. It is such a simple solution to let gay and lesbian couples get married and have the marriage be recognized by the state.NO need for some fancy schmancy civil union or what ever the hell you want to have it.
trad, no one wants to force any church or religious organisation to perform a wedding. Really, that's such a lame argument. My husband and i never forced our way into the catholic church and demanded they marry us non catholics. We never asked the local synagogue to perform the ceremony.
gay marriage is functioning quite well in canada. The country hasn't fallen apart, no one is forced to perform marriages, and life goes on!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Apr 18, 2006, 3:12 PM
Post #124 of 301
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
wjca covered that very well and in detail; I just wanted to add that there are officially 1138 benefits, at the federal and state levels, that marriage has that present civil unions do not and cannot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
