Far-left liars endanger us all

Figure I prolly oughtta go on record as sayin' I have little problem with the concept of a purely contractual civil union between two consenting adults of any gender or proclivity, conveying to the pair all the rights, benefits, responsibilities, and obligations attendant upon conventional marriage.

I also gotta say that when and if (as I suspect likely) such legally binding contractual arrangement becomes commonplace, there's no reason to expect the divorce rate among the subject population will be any lower than that applicable to the general population; in fact, I expect the new subset will make the general population look positively stable by comparison. Divorce attorney no doubt will become even more an attractive, expanding carreer field.

0 Replies

At which point those concerned will find out about the force of law in contractual agreements. Then they will discover all of the theretofore unknown intricacies and joys of becoming "unmarried."

Perhaps they should be careful what they wish for; nevertheless, my unshakeable belief in the extension of equity finds the self-serving arguments of those opposed to this to be disgusting.

0 Replies

"Extension of equity". That is the key here, set. Whenever equity is extended out to some formerly excluded group (gender, race, etc) there will be those voices which argue that something sacred or natural is about to be violated. One can take comments from segregationists or those opposed to women gaining the vote and match them in detail and sentiment with those voices opposed to gay marriages.

0 Replies

Anecdotally, i have heard conservatives here in Ahia who have stated that women ought not be allowed to vote, claiming that Gore only got a plurality because women found him attractive . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

Figure I prolly oughtta go on record as sayin' I have little problem with the concept of a purely contractual civil union between two consenting adults of any gender or proclivity, conveying to the pair all the rights, benefits, responsibilities, and obligations attendant upon conventional marriage.

Why?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Why what? Why do I think that, or why did I figure I oughtta say it for the record?

0 Replies

Both.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta writes

Quote:

This bit of nonsense presumes that homosexual people have all the rights of heterosexual people, and are demanding special consideration.

I didn't mention homosexual people but since you did, please specify what rights heterosexual people have that homosexual people do not that bothers you.

Re military service, I suppose the "don't ask - don't tell" policy put in effect by the Clinton administration was held over by the Bush administration. I suppose that one could be legitimately debated.

The Boy Scouts of America may legally exclude gay men from being scoutmasters, but then they can exclude all women too so that's sort of equal opportunity discrimination.

If you allude to 'gay marriage' that's where I say there is nothing on the law that prohibits gays from having the identical rights of heterosexuals. Two gay men are prohibited from marrying in most (all?) states, but then so are same sex heterosexual men, etc. A gay person has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any other person does.

So the discrimination is not against gays here. It is against all persons who for whatever reason don't want to or can't marry a person of the opposite sex. I can see very much value in extending the benefits of marriage to others who wish to form themselves into legal family units in order to obtain such benefits as inheritance, shared insurance, right to hospital visitation etc. I just want this kind of contractual arrangement to be called something other than marriage and leave traditional marriage as it is.

Most reasonable people--both heterosexual and homosexual--are quite willing to compromise here and make it a win win proposition. Those unwilling to compromise I think have an agenda that is much different than simply wanting equal opportunity here.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If you allude to 'gay marriage' that's where I say there is nothing on the law that prohibits gays from having the identical rights of heterosexuals. Two gay men are prohibited from marrying in most (all?) states, but then so are same sex heterosexual men, etc. A gay person has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any other person does.

So the discrimination is not against gays here. It is against all persons who for whatever reason don't want to or can't marry a person of the opposite sex. I can see very much value in extending the benefits of marriage to others who wish to form themselves into legal family units in order to obtain such benefits as inheritance, shared insurance, right to hospital visitation etc. I just want this kind of contractual arrangement to be called something other than marriage and leave traditional marriage as it is.

You mean that really, right?

Shocked

0 Replies

Yes Walter. I really mean it. That's why I keep saying it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't mention homosexual people but since you did, please specify what rights heterosexual people have that homosexual people do not that bothers you.

If you allude to 'gay marriage' that's where I say there is nothing on the law that prohibits gays from having the identical rights of heterosexuals. Two gay men are prohibited from marrying in most (all?) states, but then so are same sex heterosexual men, etc. A gay person has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any other person does.

So the discrimination is not against gays here. It is against all persons who for whatever reason don't want to or can't marry a person of the opposite sex. I can see very much value in extending the benefits of marriage to others who wish to form themselves into legal family units in order to obtain such benefits as inheritance, shared insurance, right to hospital visitation etc. I just want this kind of contractual arrangement to be called something other than marriage and leave traditional marriage as it is.

Most reasonable people--both heterosexual and homosexual--are quite willing to compromise here and make it a win win proposition. Those unwilling to compromise I think have an agenda that is much different than simply wanting equal opportunity here.

This is so muddle-headed as to be almost incomprehesible. I'm with Walter on this one. Either you can't be serious, or you are not to be taken seriously.

The right which heterosexuals have available to them which homosexuals do not is marriage. You resolutely ignore that being "married" as opposed to simply joined in a civil union, confers upon the married couple a host of legal benefits which do not accrue to the unmarried. There is tax legislation, there are testamentary rights, there are issues of consent or its denial in situations in which one partner is not competent, there are joint property issues and benefits, there are insurance and pension benefits which accrue to the married, but not to any other class. You continue to purport that you're willing to compromise. In what does your alleged compromise consist? On the other hand, you demand in return that homosexual couples not be allowed to be married. That is no compromise, that is an abandonment of the attempt to secure an equality of rights. Marriage is not a religious institution in the eyes of the law. It is a civil contract. The hysteria of the christian right in particular, and many among the right in general, is out of all proportion to the issue. The issue is equity in contractual relationships. Continually attempting, as you feebly do, that there need only be a little compromise on the use of the word "marriage," is disingenuous or stupid--which, of course, i cannot say would apply to you. Without marriage, per se, homosexuals do not have equal rights in their access to civil contract.

0 Replies

Quote:

So the discrimination is not against gays here. It is against all persons who for whatever reason don't want to or can't marry a person of the opposite sex. I can see very much value in extending the benefits of marriage to others who wish to form themselves into legal family units in order to obtain such benefits as inheritance, shared insurance, right to hospital visitation etc. I just want this kind of contractual arrangement to be called something other than marriage and leave traditional marriage as it is.

How about the idea that.... we don't discriminate against anyone?

Man, people are sure hung up on the definition of a word. Tell me, what would be so bad about calling a gay partnership a marriage, Fox? What would the actual effects of that be upon you, or anyone else?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It requires people who put great value on the institution of marriage to accept that marriage will mean something other than what it traditionally means now. You have well over 50% of the U.S. population who do not wish to do that. However, I do believe a plurality will accept civil unions for other than the one man one woman union if that compromise can be worked out.

With no compromise 'marriage' as we know it becomes meaningless and all those who value marriage as it is now will be forced to give up something very important to them.

Reverse the question. Why is the concept of civil unions not for gays but for anybody else who needs this option so repugnant? Why must this be an all or nothing proposition that only creates hard feelings and ensures that prejudices and bigotry continues much longer than it needs to?

What is wrong with a win win solution?

0 Replies

Points you are missing:

1. Marriage now is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights in this.

2. Marriage is NOT about joining 2 people who love each other (though this is generally the case. Political marriages and marriages of convenience are not unheard of though) as homosexuals would have you believe. See point one.

3. The definition of a marriage must change to fit the homosexual agenda, many heterosexuals oppose that definition change.

By changing the definition, you are granting special rights to a minority.

How about we change the definition of a civil union instead and grant equal rights to all via a governmental union and leave marriage as it is?

0 Replies

That would not be a problem, McG, were the opponents of gay marriage willing to make that compromise. But talk is cheap--unless and until the Federal government recognizes civil union as being entitled to all the rights and privileges of marriage, then marriage of gays is the only avenue to full equity. As the partners in marriage represent less than half the population, by your standards, you are attempting to defend special rights for a minority.

Fox seems to think that she and others are harmed by being obliged to give an idea of what marriage means. There is no substantive harm which can be alleged in that case, simply mental anguish. See my remarks to McG, above. The Federal government does not recognize civil union as equivalent to marriage. Probate courts in the states do not recognize civil union as equivalent to marriage. Hospital authorities do not recognize civil union as equivalent to marriage.

People who have constructed an elaborate religious myth around the civil institution of marriage need to get over themselves. They don't own either the word marriage, or the contractual nature thereof.

0 Replies

I don't see that religion has been mentioned by anybody but you here Setanta. Show me one single thing that heterosexual people can do within the current definition of marriage that a homosexual person cannot do.

Hung up on a word? If additional rights are afforded to help gay people and all other unmarried people have the privileges inherent in marriage that they say they now want, what difference does the word mean to them? Why is it so important to call it marriage?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Show me one single thing that heterosexual people can do within the current definition of marriage that a homosexual person cannot do.

Love his/her spouse.

0 Replies

Quote:

Reverse the question. Why is the concept of civil unions not for gays but for anybody else who needs this option so repugnant? Why must this be an all or nothing proposition that only creates hard feelings and ensures that prejudices and bigotry continues much longer than it needs to?

What is wrong with a win win solution?

What set said, for sure. The way things are set up right now, they aren't the same. McG's solution would bridge this gap nicely, but I think you would find more recalcitrance from the anti-gay marriage crowd for that then you would for just letting gays marry each other.

McG:2.

Quote:

Marriage is NOT about joining 2 people who love each other (though this is generally the case. Political marriages and marriages of convenience are not unheard of though) as homosexuals would have you believe. See point one.

Actually, as far as I can tell, marriages are about whatever the people getting married want them to be about. By that definition, it would seem that two gays marrying would be no big deal - it's no different than marrying someone to get your green card, or marrying someone for political and economic reasons, or marrying someone because you love them.

Now, on to the part I don't understand:

When asked, what would hurt people by allowing gays to marry each other, Fox responded:

Quote:

It requires people who put great value on the institution of marriage to accept that marriage will mean something other than what it traditionally means now.

I don't follow. How does someone else being married change your situation at all? Your original premesis for being married are unaffected by the decisions of others, right?

Quote:

You have well over 50% of the U.S. population who do not wish to do that.

Tough titty. We've had a long history of change being forced on our society in the name of removing prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance and in the name of freedom and equality for ALL.

Quote:

However, I do believe a plurality will accept civil unions for other than the one man one woman union if that compromise can be worked out.

I agree, but without the 'McG' solution it wouldn't be at all effective. Seperate is rarely equal.

Quote:

With no compromise 'marriage' as we know it becomes meaningless and all those who value marriage as it is now will be forced to give up something very important to them.

This is the part that really gets me. If you truly think that your marriage would become meaningless if gays were allowed to marry each other, I think you really need to see a counselor. Surely the feelings you have for your spouse would be unaffected by whatever decision is made, right?

Exactly how does marriage become meaningless? Will people who are married suddenly be released from obligation to each other? Will there be no more mandate from heaven justifying the love of the two? Will morality suffer, divorce become rampant, what? I'd like some specific answers on the effects, and not just vague claims that marriage would all of a sudden become 'meaningless' with no explanation as to why.

Because, ya know what? I think the true objections to gays marrying don't have a goddamn thing to do with logic. They have to do with fear, intolerance, prejudice. Which cannot be backed up with logical arguments. So you argue about how we are unallowed to change definitions, instead, as if the concepts we use in society today have not continually undergone change for thousands of years....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

But Joe, there is nothing in the law that refers to love, requires love, proposes love, or produces love.

Love is a totally separate issue whether the people involved are to traditionally marry or form a civil union.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But Joe, there is nothing in the law that refers to love, requires love, proposes love, or produces love.

You asked: "Show me one single thing that heterosexual people can do within the current definition of marriage that a homosexual person cannot do." I replied: "Love his/her spouse." Am I wrong?

Foxfyre wrote:

Love is a totally separate issue whether the people involved are to traditionally marry or form a civil union.

You asked: "Show me one single thing that heterosexual people can do within the current definition of marriage that a homosexual person cannot do." I replied: "Love his/her spouse." Am I wrong?

0 Replies

Far-left liars endanger us all

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know