"I Care about Civil Rights... but not that much"

[Reddy]

one big WTF is needed for this thread

 

or even 2

[Wong & Owens]

one big WTF is needed for this thread

 

 

Or two?

[Soxy]

/Pours gas on the fire (somewhat tongue in cheek)

 

Because it makes the institution of marriage cheaper.  Heck, let's marry our cats and dogs, because we love them.  In Tennessee, let's marry my sister, because we can.  I mean, I'm a guy and she's a girl... nothing wrong with keeping *it* in the family... it ain't hurtin' no one.

 

/uh oh...

Incest is a more difficult case, because there you have two consenting adults. But I think the biological difficulties can arise from inbreeding.

 

As for marrying your cat, a civil union is a binding legal contract. You cannot enter into one of those with a non-human or a minor. So, I don't see that as a valid counter point.

[Steff]

Or two of them.. :lol

[FlaSoxxJim]

Can o worms opening up with this one?  Of course it's not like we haven't kicked the doo doo out of this in other threads, huh?

 

True that, we've been down this road before. But, what the heck. "Cab Driver, once more round the bend."

 

Any way you slice it, this is what it comes down to:

 

Denying rights and privileges to a group of law abiding, tax-paying US citizens because of their sexual orientation, based on a non-universally held interpretation of religious dictum is discriminatory. I don't see how it can be viewed otherwise, regardless of how various segments of society feel about the morality of homosexuality. Though largely a Christian nation, we're not a theocracy, and our laws governing marriage should not be derived from subjective interpretation of denominational religious writing.

 

And, ultimately, I'm sure they won't be.

[SpringfieldFan]

If you're correct, then why isn't there also a push to prohibit straight people from getting married who can't or won't procreate?

 

I knew this would come up. The basic nature of man and women is procreation. When sterile man and woman are "married" it does not compromise that nature because their actions are still in accord with it and they are not intentionally going against nature. In fact, we would also most likely understand that they would wish to have a family if they could. It seems pretty clear. Now regarding a man and women who choose not to be married without children: well, I believe that a marriage should be open to children and that contraception does a disservice to the value of marriage and we lose as a result. I believe marriage (sex) must include the openness to new life. If sex and life are intentionally separated, that damages us and confuses things... again.

[SpringfieldFan]

True that, we've been down this road before.  But, what the heck. "Cab Driver, once more round the bend."

 

Any way you slice it, this is what it comes down to:

 

Denying rights and privileges to a group of law abiding, tax-paying US citizens because of their sexual orientation, based on a non-universally held interpretation of religious dictum is discriminatory. 

 

It is a sacrifice to have and raise kids. How is it discriminatory to give a married man and women some "help" in that noble pursuit but not to a couple that won't have that burden? By the logic, I would assume the rights and priveleges reserved for married couples should be given to all co-inhabitants, and single people as well. Again, I think the sacrifice for children deserves something.

 

Besides, I don't think you need to look at religion to see why it is important to hold family based marriage to a high standard and recognize the harm to society that results when its value isn't understood.

Edited September 8, 2005 by SpringfieldFan

[Reddy]

When sterile man and woman are "married" it does not compromise that nature because their actions are still in accord with it and they are not intentionally going against nature.

 

now here's where the REAL impasse is. you say they're not intentionally going against nature, but neither are homosexuals. in my and many many medical professionals opinions, homosexuality is genetic. it is something you're born with. thats the impasse. and it's what this whole debate boils down to. i have many gay friends. they tell me they didn't CHOOSE to be gay, and i think they would know. especially in a climate where to be gay is to be ridiculed and ostracized, why would ANYONE CHOOSE to be gay?

 

wanna talk can o' worms?

[FlaSoxxJim]

It is a sacrifice to have and raise kids.  How is it discriminatory to give a married man and women some "help" in that noble pursuit but not to a couple that won't have that burden?  By the logic, I would assume the rights and priveleges reserved for married couples should be given to all co-inhabitants, and single people as well.  Again, I think the sacrifice for children deserves something.

 

Besides, I don't think you need to look at religion to see why it is important to hold family based marriage to a high standard and recognize the harm to society that results when its value isn't understood.

 

It's not discriminatory to give a married man and women some "help." It IS discriminatory to DENY a loving couple the right to a legal wedded union with all it's rights, priveleges, and protections solely on the basis of sexual orienttation.

 

It's a sacrifice to do a lot of things. The sacrifice for children deserves and gets plenty (I'm a father of two, btw. It gets you a federal tax credit that nonparents (even gay nonparents) don't receive. Above and beyond that, it also gives you the love of a child, and the unique joy of being a parent.

 

But being a parent is (ideally) a choice. For gay couples that choice may be achieved through adoption, in which case they too should be lagally entitled to the tax credit.

 

Your second paragraph about seeing the need to hold family based marriage to a high standard IS based on (or at least in keeping with) your religious leanings. Ditto for your feelings on contraception cheapening the institution. There is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely nothing wrong with holding those personal viewpointst (I'm a recovering Catholic going on 20 years). But, again, it is a subjective viewpoint not universally shared, and should not be a basis for laws dictating who should be allowed to enjoy the right to marriage.

[SpringfieldFan]

now here's where the REAL impasse is.  you say they're not intentionally going against nature, but neither are homosexuals.  in my and many many medical professionals opinions, homosexuality is genetic.  it is something you're born with.  thats the impasse.  and it's what this whole debate boils down to.  i have many gay friends.  they tell me they didn't CHOOSE to be gay, and i think they would know.  especially in a climate where to be gay is to be ridiculed and ostracized, why would ANYONE CHOOSE to be gay? 

 

wanna talk can o' worms?

 

Choosing to act is different then choosing to be, but I don't want to go any further into that can of worms. We have all heard the arguments many times before and they get ugly. I would rather just defer the argument then rehash all that...

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you. Experiment concluded.

 

You have taken the debate to a wider scope which begs to ask the question should homosexual partners be given the same status in adoption rights as heterosexual couples? I say no.

 

There should be greater scrutiny appled to that which we do not know. It's virtually an unknown as to whether homosex households will have an adverse affect on the rearing of the child. It should allowed but initially only in a limited scope that we can easily analyze & collect data on before expansion.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[SpringfieldFan]

It's not discriminatory to give a married man and women some "help."  It IS discriminatory to DENY a loving couple the right to a legal wedded union with all it's rights, priveleges, and protections solely on the basis of sexual orienttation.

 

It's a sacrifice to do a lot of things.  The sacrifice for children deserves and gets plenty (I'm a father of two, btw.  It gets you a federal tax credit that nonparents (even gay nonparents) don't receive.  Above and beyond that, it also gives you the love of a child, and the unique joy of being a parent.

 

But being a parent is (ideally) a choice.  For gay couples that choice may be achieved through adoption, in which case they too should be lagally entitled to the tax credit.

 

Your second paragraph about seeing the need to hold family based marriage to a high standard IS based on (or at least in keeping with) your religious leanings.  Ditto for your feelings on contraception cheapening the institution.  There is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely nothing wrong with holding those personal viewpointst (I'm a recovering Catholic going on 20 years).  But, again, it is a subjective viewpoint not universally shared, and should not be a basis for laws dictating who should be allowed to enjoy the right to marriage.

 

I think we might start going in circle here, so I will defer. I appreciate your points, as I can see where you are coming from. I just with it were easier for people to see the reason for the "religion" based views in logic and by evidence, but it is a very murky muddy issue and often just comes down to faith. I just hope I am not seen as a hate-monger, homophobe, radical, or whatever other terms are used. Hopefully my position will be seen as one held with a thought and caring and a desire for the best for everyone. Peace!

Edited September 8, 2005 by SpringfieldFan

[kapkomet]

Thank you. Experiment concluded. 

 

You have taken the debate to a wider scope which begs to ask the question should homosexual partners be given the same status in adoption rights as heterosexual couples? I say no.

 

There should be greater scrutiny appled to that which we do not know.  It's virtually an unknown as to whether homosex households will have an adverse affect on the rearing of the child. It should allowed but initially only in a limited scope that we can easily analyze & collect data on before expansion.

How do you analyze something like this without causing huge problems?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think we might start going in circle here, so I will defer.  I appreciate your points, as I can see where you are coming from.  I just with it were easier for people to see evidence of "religious" based views in logic and by evidence, but it is a very murky muddy issue and often just comes down to faith.  I just hope I am not seen as a hate-monger, homophobe, radical, or whatever other terms are used.  Hopefully my position will be seen as one held with a thought and caring and a desire for the best for everyone.  Peace!

Love and do what you will.

[SpringfieldFan]

Love and do what you will.

[JUGGERNAUT]

How do you analyze something like this without causing huge problems?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not going to be easy that's for sure. I'm thinking of a form of arbitration.

Assign 2 people per adoption case. One for & one against. Each has the opportunity to conduct a monthly interview & assessment & make recommendations before the judge. The judge then makes a decision on which recommendations will be enforced. Failure to comply would risk the adoption rights.

 

I would even extend this process to non homosex HH including ex-convicts, ex drug users, single persons, & other classification which could be considered unknown.

 

I don't know if it's the best approach but I am a technocrat as much as I am a Christian so logically the best I can come up with. I do believe that technology is going to help greatly in the matter. Eventually there will both screening & testing technology available that will help define the process.

 

Without diverging too much it will be interesting to see the impact on the population when screening technology becomes available. If you follow the science & believe that profit potential is the driving force behind scientific applications it's inevitable.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[EvilMonkey]

getting the talk back to Arnold and CA, didn't the voters there pass the referendum defining marraige as a man and a woman? If that is the case, then the state lawmakers are going against the very wishes of their constituants by trying to get a law passed that goes against the voters. Is the majority right? Who knows. However, the lawmakers were sent there to represent the people of the state, and the people voted for marraige to mean a man and a woman. Why do these reps think they know better than their voters? Leave it to Dems to think that they know what the people want and need, even when the very people tell them otherwise. Arnold is just following the lead of the voters in California by vetoing this bill.

[FlaSoxxJim]

getting the talk back to Arnold and CA, didn't the voters there pass the referendum defining marraige as a man and a woman?  If that is the case, then the state lawmakers are going against the very wishes of their constituants by trying to get a law passed that goes against the voters.  Is the majority right?  Who knows.  However, the lawmakers were sent there to represent the people of the state, and the people voted for marraige to mean a man and a woman.  Why do these reps think they know better than their voters? Leave it to Dems to think that they know what the people want and need, even when the very people tell them otherwise.  Arnold is just following the lead of the voters in California by vetoing this bill.

Yeah, that's Prop 22, the Defense of Marriage Act. It passed in 2000 in 52 of 58 counties, excepting those in the greater SF area. Prop 22 was Arnold's out, but it wasn't entirely clear which way he would lean since he is considered to be liberal in terms of social issues.

 

A question becomes who has the right to govern law at the level of the local community. the federal constitution could be argued to supercede the state constitution, and so long as a gay mariage ammendment doesn't make it into the federal constitution, I guess the argument can be made that the federal right to life/liberty/happiness is being unfairly compromixed at the state level.

 

Conversely, for those who see local governance as being primary, the argument can possibly be made that the rights of the heavily gay/gay-friendly SF area are being unfairly dictated by the rest of the state.

 

I dunno. Marry who you want and try like hell to make it work.

[EvilMonkey]

personally, I don't care. Someone else on here brought up the idea of confirring the same 'benefits' of marraige on civil unions and just leave it at that. The thinking behind that was that people who seem to care about it, have a definition of marraige that wouldn't work if it were 2 same sex people involved. Another poster brought up 'so what, how are you hurt by that'. Well, I think they are hurt by the dilutiing of the idea/institution. And yes, divorce and adultry don't help either, I know. That would get around all the 'defense of marraige' acts, but still accomplish the same goals. Seperate but different, you say? Yes, because they ARE different. Why is the gay community hung up on the word marraige?

[Balta1701]

getting the talk back to Arnold and CA, didn't the voters there pass the referendum defining marraige as a man and a woman?  If that is the case, then the state lawmakers are going against the very wishes of their constituants by trying to get a law passed that goes against the voters.  Is the majority right?  Who knows.  However, the lawmakers were sent there to represent the people of the state, and the people voted for marraige to mean a man and a woman.  Why do these reps think they know better than their voters? Leave it to Dems to think that they know what the people want and need, even when the very people tell them otherwise.  Arnold is just following the lead of the voters in California by vetoing this bill.

Section 300 of California Civil Code defines civil marriage. Section 308 defines recognition of out-of-state marriages. Proposition 22 was inserted at Section 308.5. The issue of any equal marriage law was not on the ballot. This debate was on an amendment to Section 300.

 

There would have been a court challenge if the Governor (am I no longer allowed to call him Governor a** grabber or the gropinator?) decided to sign the bill, but I believe the court challenge would have failed.

[Balta1701]

Why is the gay community hung up on the word marraige?

Why is the heterosexual community so hung up on the word?

[kapkomet]

Why is the heterosexual community so hung up on the word?

Because the homosexuals are hung up on it, duuuuh...

[Rex Kickass]

The term "marriage" is a relgious term.

 

Homosexuality is against most churches' beliefs.

 

Civil unions would be the way to avoid the majority of conflict by the churches.

 

Would different sex couple's civil unions be referred to as civil unions as well?

 

Then I got no problem with it. Equal rights are equal rights.

[farmteam]

The Juggs at the beginning of this thread should have joined a Rangers board. His views would be welcome there.

 

I kid because I care.

 

Actually, I kid to mock FlaSoxxJim

Edited September 8, 2005 by farmteam

[Rex Kickass]

I don't mean to say all our kids will turn gay, but the lack of respect for the value of human lives in this gratfication age cannot be healthy, and cannot lead to real happiness.

 

SFF

 

Ahh, the children. Always the last refuge...

 

As the resident gaybo on this board, (Despite my unusual affection for Bea Arthur) I can honestly say that offering equal rights and responsibilities to all human beings at the federal and state level is not "gratification." I can also I didn't choose to be gay - those feelings and that sexuality chose me. Try being the fat gay guy and see how easy that is.

 

We aren't talking about forcing churches to do anything. We're talking about governments conferring the same rights and responsibilities to all domestic partnerships regardless of sex. Same sex, oppposite sex, whatever.

 

Equal rights for everyone means equal rights for everyone. There is no room for gray area here. It also means equal responsibility. Meaning that same sex couples with kids that split up one of those mommies or daddies would also be responsible for child support for example.

 

The word marriage is bad because it has religious context, but its only fair and its only right to give the same rights and responsibilities to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike when it comes to the government.