What is good enough?

A federal law would presume that civil unions would be recognized by the states as marriages are but would also be subject to nuances in various state laws as marriage is.

The issue of adoption rights I posted just before yours. That issue will resolve itself I think as we gain more experience with these issues.

And agree or disagree with me Mesquite. I am absolutely not being disingenuous. I firmly believe there is a win-win solution in all this if enough people want it to turn out that way.

0 Replies

For the record, people on my side are pro-marriage. We are supporting the right of people to marry.

People who are against certain marriages would correctly be called "anti-marriage". I guess I would not mind calling them "anti-gay-marriage" but calling people who oppose marriages "pro-marriage" strains all logic.

I am most definately pro-marriage.

0 Replies

Yeah we need another word for pro-heterosexual marriage anti-gay marriage people as opposed to pro-heterosexual marriage pro civil union people as opposed to pro marriage including gay marraige people as opposed to pro civil union do away with marriage people as opposed to lets just dump it all and everybody stays single people.

Whew.

In this case, my 'pro-marriage' was intended to mean those who wish the traditional definition of marriage as one man one woman to remain intact.

0 Replies

Fox wrote: "be allowed to form themselves into legally recogized family groups that will afford them the advantages enjoyed by married couples. "

if you insert the word ALL before the word "anvantages" and then replace the word "advantages" with the words "legal rights", I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

Fox also wrote: "As far as equal rights are concerned, the dual system would provide all the benefits that the gay community (and others) say that they want and would correct the very real inequities that now exist. "

Thank you for recognizing the existence of "very real inequities". I mean that.

I do believe, however, that you are in the minority when it comes to the actual agenda of those who oppose legalizing gay marriage. I believe most of those opposed would not support allowing gay couples to be united in any legal way, and would not support a union, under any name, that guarantees them ALL equal rights.

Still, it's genuinely heartening to hear from someone on the right (I assume you are on the "right" Very Happy

) who recognizes and supports the basic fairness and justice of granting gay people the right to be legally united with exactly equivalent benefits and rights.

Well, here we are then. Someone from the left and someone from the right who can find common ground regarding an issue as fundamental and crucial as civil rights. Actually, this does not surprise me. There are at least two "sides" to almost every issue, but, IMO, there is only one side to the issue of basic civil rights: the fair and just side.

And this is where fair and just people usually come down.

0 Replies

Angie writes:

Quote:

I do believe, however, that you are in the minority when it comes to the actual agenda of those who oppose legalizing gay marriage.

I really don't think I am in the minority Angie. When one side demands that their wishes/demands/needs be considered at the expense of everybody else's differing wishes/demands/needs, everybody digs in their heels, exchange insults, and lobby like crazy to get their own way.

When people sit down to work out the closest thing they can to a win-win solution to a problem, I believe most people are capable of amicable agreement. The only comparison between the gay marriage issue and civil rights for black Americans is in the prejudices. Even after black Americans achieved legal equality, it was some time before they achieved practical equality.

I am a child of the south descended from a generation that had racial prejudices born into them, taught to them, infused into them. It was a beautiful thing to behold as some of my older relatives gradually came to tolerate, then accept, and finally embrace racial equality. The younger generation is pretty much prejudice free in that regard.

I think the same thing will happen with gay marriage. Some give and take now will create toplerance that in time will become acceptance and finally will be embraced. In time if the dual system is seen as having no practical value, it may even be dissolved. For now, let's recognize that the pro-traditional marriage crowd does have a point of view that is valid and allow them their beliefs (along with their prejudices where they exist.) By respecting their sensibilities, I do believe most will respect the needs of the others and will not interfere. It really can be win-win for everybody.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The issue of adoption rights I posted just before yours. That issue will resolve itself I think as we gain more experience with these issues.

And agree or disagree with me Mesquite. I am absolutely not being disingenuous. I firmly believe there is a win-win solution in all this if enough people want it to turn out that way.

You are indeed being disingenuous when you on one hand propose extending equality of all rights and benefits, then go on to add your own personal pet exclusion. Others will most certainly also have there own personal favorite exclusions.

0 Replies

I agree, mesquite.

0 Replies

Already answered above Mesquite. The issue of adopting children should be a separate debate. If you insist on making it a part of this one, okay, but I won't participate. I'll just mark you down as one of the "all or nothing" group. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre, I am from the south also. Seperate but equal then was called segregation. When it ended, it was not phased in with grade one, then two, then three. It ended period!

I am only including the adoption issue to highlight the inability of your proposal to grant equality to a different word and have it fit and apply to ALL EXISTING laws, codes regulations. Can't happen.

0 Replies

Okay Mesquite. As I said, not everybody wants to compromise to find a win-win solution for a problem.

0 Replies

A non- functional solution is not a compromise

0 Replies

We don't need to compromise. We pro-marriage people have the upper hand and I for one intend to keep pressing.

I would accept Foxy's "compromise" . If we truly achieve "full and equal rights under the law for homosexual unions" it would mean victory for the pro-marriage camp.

I have the feeling that most anti-marriage people would oppose Foxy's solution as a loss for their cause.

But no matter. We have history and justice and a change in social attitudes on our side.

Massachusetts is going to realize that gay marriages are a good thing by the time we hold our referendum. Then we will fight state by state to accept them as social attitudes change and the more progressive young people gain their voice.

BTW I am pro-adoption too, but that is for another thread.

0 Replies

Foxy,

Quote:

Okay Mesquite. As I said, not everybody wants to compromise to find a win-win solution for a problem.

If homosexuals are granted all the marriage rights of heterosexuals, what do heterosexuals lose? Some form of exclusivity?

The adoption issue needs to be part of the marriage issue.

What all this needs to say is that it is OKAY to be gay.

A homosexual's existence is worth exactly the same amount as a heterosexual's. That they have the same rights to anything and everything a heterosexual has rights to.

You seem to feel that because the gay community wants equality, you are personally giving up something for them to have it, and then you want them to give a little, so that the narrow-minded people of the country will feel like they've won something too - by keeping the gay community, just "one-word" different.

0 Replies

ebrown writes:

Quote:

BTW I am pro-adoption too, but that is for another thread.

Oh so am I. I will very much oppose any law that attempts to bar singles or gays from adopting children or questioning custodial rights based only on single or same sex status.

But my agenda here is always focused on what is best for the children. The debate whether children are better off with a mom and a dad than they are with same sex parents or single parents needs to be had toward determining whether a heterosexual couple should have preference in adopting. And yes, that is for another thread though it has been debated exhaustively in Philosophy and Debate.

0 Replies

Hah! Don't bar them, just make sure they stay forever on the bottom of the list.! You shoulda been a comic.

0 Replies

Foxfyre: I'm from up north and I, too, was brought up in an environment that tolerated prejudice. As soon as I was old enough to think for myself, I realized how wrong prejudice and bigotry are.

you wrote: "It was a beautiful thing to behold as some of my older relatives gradually came to tolerate, then accept, and finally embrace racial equality." I agree with you that time will bring acceptance. I believe, however, that, as with racial civil rights, the laws have to come first. As I have said many times, if racial civil rights were put to a popular vote in the sixties, they would have been shot down big time.

So, if I am correct, you agree with me that the rights need to happen now, and I agree with you that if the rights are there, you can call it anything you like.

I do still disagree with you, however, regarding how most people currently opposed to gay marriage truly feel. I believe that, unlike you, if we were to offer a legal union that carried with it exactly and all the same rights as civil marriage, by a different name, they would still oppose it.

Don't you see? A bigot is opposed to the rights, not to the name.

I do believe that I am correct regarding that opposition, though I wish with all my heart that you were.

0 Replies

I don't know whether you're right or wrong on that Angie. I speak from observation of what is written by those on the right, and except for the extremely wacky far right wingnuts, I'm simply not seeing any inclination to discriminate against gays. And among my own family, church, professional associates, and social group, the inclination for discrimination just isn't there. Maybe it's different where you are. But I'm hoping the American people are as reasonable as I think they are when given reasonable options.

0 Replies

Well this isn't the exact question, but close. Looks to me like Angie's intuition is closer to reality than Foxfyres. Looking at replies many of the other questions, bigots on this issue are no small minority.

Quote:

The Los Angeles Times Poll. Nov. 15-18, 2003. N=1,345 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).

"Would you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions that are not marriages, but would give similar legal protection in areas such as inheritance, taxes, health insurance and hospital visits, or haven't you heard enough about it yet to say?"

......................Support........Oppose......... Don't Know
............................%.................%.................%
ALL......................36.................40...............24
Democrats...........42................36................22
Independents......36................37................27
Republicans..........21................64...............15

Source

0 Replies

Fascinating site Mesquite and I have favorited it for future reference. Thanks for the link.

I do find it interesting that out of the plethora of polls available, you picked one of the oldest and one that specifically supported your point of view that most Americans are bigoted. In reading through the many results, I came to a different conclusion:

1. Too few Americans are yet convinced of the ramifications involved in civil unions to be substantially supportive at this time. However as the national debate progresses, the numbers are slowly shifting in direction of support for that concept.

2. In any poll results, it always helps to see ALL the questions in the poll in order to determine if the questions preceding the more volatile issues are framed to encourage a particular response to the more volatile issues. (You see, I DID pay some attention in statistics class.)

3. I think what these many poll results also indicate is that a substantial majority of Americans favor retaining the traditional definition of marriage as one man, one woman.

4. I don't think you can make a case for bigotry against gays with any poll results shown. I don't know how many approach this issue as an equal rights issue rather than a discrimination issue, but that is not reflected in any of the polls and it should be.

I am not persuaded that a reasonable compromise that essentially achieves what everybody wants is impossible a majority on all sides of the issue are willing to look for one.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Fascinating site Mesquite and I have favorited it for future reference. Thanks for the link.

I do find it interesting that out of the plethora of polls available, you picked one of the oldest and one that specifically supported your point of view that most Americans are bigoted. In reading through the many results, I came to a different conclusion:

I didn't pick that poll to demo bigotry, that is evident in all of the polls. I picked that one because it came close to addressing this position of yours.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think a good majority of the anti-gay marriage crowd would agree to civil unions with equal benefits would would even support this if one small compromise can be made: just call it something other than marriage. That will satisfy just about everybody except the tiny minority of the 'all or nothing' crowd on both sides.

Foxfyre wrote:

1. Too few Americans are yet convinced of the ramifications involved in civil unions to be substantially supportive at this time. However as the national debate progresses, the numbers are slowly shifting in direction of support for that concept.

I agree, and that is a long way from the tiny minority quoted above.

Foxfyre wrote:

2. In any poll results, it always helps to see ALL the questions in the poll in order to determine if the questions preceding the more volatile issues are framed to encourage a particular response to the more volatile issues. (You see, I DID pay some attention in statistics class.)

I am not sure of your point here. Did you detect a bias to the polls in one direction or the other?

Foxfyre wrote:

3. I think what these many poll results also indicate is that a substantial majority of Americans favor retaining the traditional definition of marriage as one man, one woman.

Just as with suffrage and civil rights issues of the past.

Foxfyre wrote:

4. I don't think you can make a case for bigotry against gays with any poll results shown. I don't know how many approach this issue as an equal rights issue rather than a discrimination issue, but that is not reflected in any of the polls and it should be.

I don't need to make a case. The polls speak for themselves.

Foxfyre wrote:

I am not persuaded that a reasonable compromise that essentially achieves what everybody wants is impossible a majority on all sides of the issue are willing to look for one.

I am not a lawyer, but I do not think your solution of applying equal rights to a different term is workable. As I pointed out earlier, even you insist on at least one exclusion. Segregation did not end with only the first row of seats on the bus excluded.

0 Replies

What is good enough?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know