I don't know. I have gay friends who I think love me a great deal. I can't say whether a gay person would be unable to love a spouse of the opposite sex. Can you?
But this reduces the debate to the point of ultra silliness I think. If the agenda of the gay community is to achieve benefits currently unavailable to them, the civil union approach is the way to go. That would help not only gays but all people who for whatever reason do not wish to or cannot marry within the current traditional definition of marriage.
This really can be win win by the pro-traditional marriage community, even the homophobics of which most are not, accepting and recognizing families formed through civil unions.
All it requires is that the gay community be willing to compromise on one thing and one thing only: the word.
A heterosexual survivor of a marriage can inherent from their now deceased spouse intestate. A heterosexual partner can give or withhold consent in a medical situation in which the person concerned cannot give informed consent. A heterosexual member of a dissolving marriage cannot withhold joint property or the equivalent value thereof.
As i have pointed out, and as Cycloptichorn points out, your marriage is not altered by the marriage of any other. You are just offended by a concept, and therefore wish to interpose your will between homosexual people and their desire for equality before the law.
It's a hell of lot simpler to allow homosexuals to marry than to attempt the literally thousands of codes, statutes, laws and by-laws which currently do not recognize marriage and civil union as equivalent. The current opposition is rightfully seen as a dodge to avoid acknowledging equity.
Well, I wouldn't bother at all, too, if no-one would speak of 'marriage' anymore, and we all only would live in civil unions.
Okay, I'll just put you down as one who is unwilling to compromise and achieve a win-win solution Setanta. I see you as wanting special rights for gays instead of including all people who might need the same benefits you (and I) wish for gays to have. I just include everybody in my wish, not just homosexual people. Which of us is the more even handed here do you think?
Never mind answering that. I'll butt out of the discussion now as I've found it is pretty futile with those who cannot or will not look for win-win solutions to anything . I am having much more success in real life discussions. It is gratifying to know that many people, both gay and straight, are willing to be reasonable.
Foxfyre wrote:I don't know. I have gay friends who I think love me a great deal.
How many have asked you to marry them?
Foxfyre wrote:I can't say whether a gay person would be unable to love a spouse of the opposite sex. Can you?
Yes. Currently, the state sanctions only heterosexual affective relationships. Homosexuals, therefore, cannot marry the persons with whom they are in love.
Foxfyre wrote:But this reduces the debate to the point of ultra silliness I think.
Then you shouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
Fox, before you go, can you tell me how, specifically, pre-existing marriages could be changed - in your words, 'become meaningless,' by allowing gays to marry?
Please? I'm really trying hard to understand your point on this issue.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Fox, before you go, can you tell me how, specifically, pre-existing marriages could be changed - in your words, 'become meaningless,' by allowing gays to marry?
Please? I'm really trying hard to understand your point on this issue.
Cycloptichorn
Don't you know?
See when a conservative gets married and stands in front of God and family to pledge their life to another person there is a clause. Call it the "my fingers were crossed" effect. Which means that if at any time in the future Gay's are allowed to marry their love, committment and family becomes irrelevant. They will lose all love for their spouse, their family will not mean a damn thing and they will lose all desire to uphold their values.
I was sure this was written into every marriage contract.
Foxfyre wrote:I don't see that religion has been mentioned by anybody but you here Setanta.
Are you suggesting that the folks concerned about which word is used are doing so for reasons other than religion? Anyway In
this post
Baldimo wrote:The bible says that marriage shall be between a man and a woman and doesn't state anything else. For those of you who don't believe in God I can see why you have an issue with this but it was Judeo-Christian beliefs that this country was founded on. If gays want protection in certain areas then there are legal contracts that can be forged and you don't have to go to a lawyer to do this. There are plenty of legal documents online for free that can offer protection.
Foxfyre wrote: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?
In a speech at the 1992 Republican convention Pat Buchanan said this.
Quote:PAT BUCHANAN: --and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women. We stand with President Bush--
Source
Has anything changed?
I don't know how many times this has to be said, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. What would change is the definition of marriage. Why do people what to rewrite something to fit a political agenda? If it has to do with love then unions would work just fine. I think it should be left up to the American people to decide. Let the people vote and decide. Aren't you liberals that are always saying that every vote should count? Or does that only apply when you think you will win?.
Majority rule isn't applicable in this case Baldimo. What needs to be done is a true seperation of church and state where marriage becomes a religious affair and civil unions become a government affair.
What you are offering is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority and, unfortunately in this case, it's not fair to fellow Americans.
Baldimo wrote:I don't know how many times this has to be said, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. What would change is the definition of marriage. Why do people what to rewrite something to fit a political agenda? If it has to do with love then unions would work just fine. I think it should be left up to the American people to decide. Let the people vote and decide. Aren't you liberals that are always saying that every vote should count? Or does that only apply when you think you will win?.
If the American people always got to "decide" blacks and women would still not beable to vote, and interracial marriage would still be banned. What you "righties' want is carte blanche to discriminate and to stay entrenched in some victorian ideal of how you think people should live and love.
Redheat wrote:Baldimo wrote:I don't know how many times this has to be said, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. What would change is the definition of marriage. Why do people what to rewrite something to fit a political agenda? If it has to do with love then unions would work just fine. I think it should be left up to the American people to decide. Let the people vote and decide. Aren't you liberals that are always saying that every vote should count? Or does that only apply when you think you will win?.
If the American people always got to "decide" blacks and women would still not beable to vote, and interracial marriage would still be banned. What you "righties' want is carte blanche to discriminate and to stay entrenched in some victorian ideal of how you think people should live and love.
Yes, us "righties" want nothing less than world domination by and for white males only.
make that "angry white males" and you might to be on to something.
Redheat wrote:Baldimo wrote:I don't know how many times this has to be said, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. What would change is the definition of marriage. Why do people what to rewrite something to fit a political agenda? If it has to do with love then unions would work just fine. I think it should be left up to the American people to decide. Let the people vote and decide. Aren't you liberals that are always saying that every vote should count? Or does that only apply when you think you will win?.
If the American people always got to "decide" blacks and women would still not beable to vote, and interracial marriage would still be banned. What you "righties' want is carte blanche to discriminate and to stay entrenched in some victorian ideal of how you think people should live and love.
That is where you are wrong, a majority of Americans wanted civil rights, and it was the people in the south who didn't. They hardly speak for all of the US. What I want is the decision of the majority. Isn't that what our system is all about? Once again I will state that you can't equate the choice of a life style to being of a specific minority that didn't have a choice. People can't choose to be black but people can chose to be homosexual.
You speak as if the right are the bad ones. Do you know your history? You do know that it was the Republicans that freed blacks as well as had the majority vote to pass civil rights? It has been the Republicans who have been the pushers of change, not the Democrats or left wing. We are trying to protect the idea of American culture and ideas. It is these ideas that have made the US unique and a world leader. In this we must continue. As I stated there are other ways to for homosexuals to gain what they want with out disrupting the history of marriage.
[quote="Baldimo] People can't choose to be black but people can chose to be homosexual.
Quote:
That would mean, people can choose to be male or female as well ... Okay, with GM ...
mesquite asks "Has anything changed?"
What has changed are the strategies that the Christian Right has evolved in their goal towards eliminating the abomination of homosexual acts.
Fox, in suggesting that Setanta was the one who brought up religion in this discussion is being so disingenuous that she ought to be awarded a special plaque. Though anti-gay sentiment has broader cultural roots than merely the Christian Right (my father, for example, was homophobic) it is that conglomeration of CR activist groups who are driving the Republican party specifically at this issue. If a certain biblical passage were worded differently (or interpreted differently), one can validly surmise that those CR groups would not be pushing as they are.
But the CR activists have learned that certain public statements are counter-productive towards goal achievement. If we look at the evolving campaigns to rid schools of Darwinian theory, we see a similar shift in argument/rhetoric...from "the Holy Bible says God made the world in six days" to "it is anti-religious and anti-intellectual to not bring all competing theories into the school discussion." In the case of gay marriage, the modern rhetoric is as foxfyre voices it...the portrayal of heterosexuals or those who believe marriage ought only to be heterosexual as victims (off course, the same claim can be made in an argument against interracial marriage, which shows us how valuable it is as a bit of logic).
This portrayal of the better-off as victim has become a common rhetorical trick from the modern right, not merely the Christian Right. We see it in their arguments against giving blacks and women a leg up in schooling and in hiring/wages. We see it in arguments against the UN, or against agreements such as Kyoto (the US is portrayed as the potential victim if it agrees to change its position away from world-leading polluter or away from world-leading distributor of WOMD). Watch for this neat little trick.
In the gay marriage rhetoric out of the CR, we also see an evolution in their framing of the debate. Just as the Creationists learned that they would have to enter the debate using a scientific presentation, they have learned that they must enter the gay marriage debate using constitutional language and traditional human/civil rights concepts (fairness, victimhood).
Walter Hinteler wrote:[quote="Baldimo] People can't choose to be black but people can chose to be homosexual.
That would mean, people can choose to be male or female as well ... Okay, with GM ...[/quote]
No it wouldn't, don't be silly.
People can get a sex change operation, but that isn't made possible by the choice of having or not having perverted sex.
Please define perverted sex. I await with breath bated.
