Gay Rights

[Indiana Oracle]

Just finished commenting in another forum on this topic. Many participants were highly exercised and wildly misinformed in some instances.

Here is my view which I believe is shared by many people in flyover country.

• Gays are no more special in our society than anyone else and should not be elevated beyond that.
• American society has been tolerant of gays for a very long time and still is; few rational people are carrying any guilt around with them on this. In contrast it is the policy of many governments, past and present, in the world to confine and even execute gays.
• Marriage in our society and across the globe is the formalization of a relationship in support of child rearing. If it makes gays feel better about themselves to be “married”, fine. But neither side of that arguement has any right to impose their viewpoint on any one, any group, or upon society as a whole.

 

[jillian]

Your opinion is interesting... however, your third point, at least, sets forth an incorrect basic premise. Marriage is not a relationship in "support of child rearing". Marriage is a relationship established by the state to create and define property rights and various other rights and obligations, none of which necessarily have anything to do with childrearing. Disposition of child support and custody issues generally does not occur until the TERMINATION of the marital relationship.

As far as tolerance of gays, you might be right. I'd suspect that depends on where one lives and that someone like Matthew Shepard would have disagreed strongly.

Finally, giving someone equal rights no more elevates them than ending "separate but equal" education "elevated" blacks.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I think the fundamental problem here is that straight religious types have been propagandized to believe that homosexuals want special rights.

If you are a heterosexual, you can marry the person you love and desire to be with, as long as that person is a consenting adult, and each state will recognize the legitimacy of the marriage. You will receive all the rights and benefits which come with the institution of marriage, including social, unofficial, recognition as a married couple. You will enjoy your status as an US citizen.

If you are heterosexual, you can marry someone who you don't love and desire to be with, as long as that person is a consenting adult, and receive none of the same rights, benefits, and status as all other US citizens unless you are in Hawii or Massachusetts. And you won't be happily married.

If you are a homosexual, you can't marry the person you love and desire to be with, even if that person is a consenting adult, and receive all of the same rights and benefits which come with the institution of marriage, which effectively lowers you to the unofficial status as a second class citizen.

If you are a homosexual, you can marry someone who you don't love and desire to be with, as long as that person is a consenting adult, and receive all of the same rights, benefits, and status as all other American citizens. But you won't be happily married.

So, for there to be equal rights and status, which means equality, this is the way it should be:

If you are a US citizen, you should be able to marry the person you love and desire to be with, as long as that person is a consenting adult, and enjoy all of the rights, benefits and status that are legally extended to those who enter into the institution of marriage, and which are recognized by every state in the US.

So it isn't special rights. And it doesn't change the definition of marriage. It just expands the legal definition of marriage. Churches who don't wish to marry or accept homosexual members won't be forced to.

And no one will be able to legally marry an animal, a minor, or someone who is legally mentally incapacitated.

And yes, we should legalize polygamy. Its none of our business.

 

[glockmail]

All the gay marriage "rights" can be accomplished with existing laws and power-of-attorney agreements. The gays are committed to tearing down societal morality so they want to shove gay marriage down our throats.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

All the gay marriage "rights" can be accomplished with existing laws and power-of-attorney agreements. The gays are committed to tearing down societal morality so they want to shove gay marriage down our throats.

Why do homosexuals want to tear down societal morality? Because Satan is their master?

How do they shove gay marriage down your throat? By making you have a gay wedding?

C'mon, Glock. You just sound like a homophobic Christian fundamentalist. Clint ain't afraid of those candy-asses.

 

[Newby]

You didn't address his comments however. They can all be legally acheived w/o a 'marriage' just as he said, so what's the big deal about calling it 'marriage' then if there isn't any more to it than legal issues?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You didn't address his comments however. They can all be legally acheived w/o a 'marriage' just as he said, so what's the big deal about calling it 'marriage' then if there isn't any more to it than legal issues?

Because they wouldn't have the same status as heterosexual US citizens because they wouldn't be able to marry and have the same rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples without going beyond and getting power of attorney. And would they still get all of the tax benefits? Would that still get them all of the same rights and benefits? Does power of attorney necessarily get them everything heterosexual married couples get?

Its not just about the rights and benefits, its about the equal status.

 

[glockmail]

...Why do homosexuals want to tear down societal morality? Because Satan is their master?....

I don't claim to know the reasoning behind their motives but when you look at how easy their issues can be resolved without offending a huge majority of people, especially religious people, the motive that I theorized is the most logical.

 

[glockmail]

...

Its not just about the rights and benefits, its about the equal status.

You can't legislate "status".

 

[Newby]

Exactly, they want validation that society accepts who and what they are, and that cannot be legislated or forced on anyone.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

The questions that come to my mind on this issue revolve around whether we are talking about correcting an unjustice or participating in the writhings of another grievance industry.

Assuming the former the questions are:
1. What is the injustice
2. Where does resolving it lead society
3. What constitutes resolution to the injustice
4. How will that resolution be measured

Each time I have posed these I have received grievance industry boilerplate back and lots of emotion.

What is everyone's take on those four questions?

 

[glockmail]

You're asking a lobby built on emotion to argue logic. Since they know that logic will destroy their argument you will be ignored or labeled a homophobe.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." Ghandi

 

[Coloradomtnman]

...Why do homosexuals want to tear down societal morality? Because Satan is their master?....

I don't claim to know the reasoning behind their motives but when you look at how easy their issues can be resolved without offending a huge majority of people, especially religious people, the motive that I theorized is the most logical.

So if the homosexual community's motive is to be able to get married to the consenting adult that they love and desire so and enjoying the same level of status and citizenship how is that they are trying to tear down societal morals? Its not just about rights and benefits, its about equality.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Jillian.
From a legal standpoint, of course you are correct regarding marriage. As understood by the citizenry in general, this aspect is secondary. This is what I was referring to.
There is no person in full possession of his faculties who does not highly dislike something. So uniformity of attitude toward gays in a country as big as America is impossible. Broadly speaking, however, American society is very tolerant of gays and other social segments.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

1. What is the injustice
2. Where does resolving it lead society
3. What constitutes resolution to the injustice
4. How will that resolution be measured

1. The grievance is that heterosexual US citizens can marry the consenting adult that they love and desire and receive all of the official rights, benefits, and status that those currently entering the institution of marriage receive. However, homosexual US citizens cannot marry the consenting adult that they love and desire and receive all of the official rights, benefits, and status as heterosexual married couples enjoy. This effectively makes them second class citizens.

2. By officially recognizing homosexual marriages, US society will demonstrate more tolerance and openness than any other society and live up to its creed: that all men are created equal and should enjoy the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

3. What consitutes resolution of the issue is the official recognition of homosexual or same-sex marriages in the US.

4. I don't understand this question. Please clarify what you mean by "measured".

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Jillian.
From a legal standpoint, of course you are correct regarding marriage. As understood by the citizenry in general, this aspect is secondary. This is what I was referring to.
There is no person in full possession of his faculties who does not highly dislike something. So uniformity of attitude toward gays in a country as big as America is impossible. Broadly speaking, however, American society is very tolerant of gays and other social segments.

Nonetheless, we are speaking of the ruling bodies not individual US citizens. Homosexuals just want to have the same status that heterosexuals have in this country.

 

[glockmail]

So if the homosexual community's motive is to be able to get married to the consenting adult that they love and desire so and enjoying the same level of status and citizenship how is that they are trying to tear down societal morals? Its not just about rights and benefits, its about equality.

Again, I wouldn't agree on that motive, since they can do that through simple legal channels available to them for some time now. Most gay couples do exactly that, and its only the ones who want to attract attention to themselves that insist on changing the very bedrock of civilized society for their own selfish desires. Their true motives must be different, and I simply offered you a plausible theory on what it actually is.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Again, I wouldn't agree on that motive, since they can do that through simple legal channels available to them for some time now. Most gay couples do exactly that, and its only the ones who want to attract attention to themselves that insist on changing the very bedrock of civilized society for their own selfish desires. Their true motives must be different, and I simply offered you a plausible theory on what it actually is.

Its not just the legal rights and benefits that is the issue. Its also equality. Heterosexual couples can marry the consenting adult that they desire and it is officially recognized. Homosexuals can marry the consenting adult that they desire but it isn't officially recognized. This effectively lowers homosexuals' status to that of second class citizens.

 

[BrokenAngel]

The largest problem with this argument is that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and with that foundation came certain terms. I am actually against gay marriage in only one aspect, name. If marriage between a woman and a woman or a man and a man is accepted by the state and the people in that state then there is NO reason it should be denied.

Personally though I am for the reformation of the entire structure of marriage in our legal system. We should call all legal unions exactly that.. unions or civil unions if you will. The automatic green card should be taken out of the unions and if you wish to wed someone of another country work with them and help them to gain their green card or a visa through normal legal channels.

Marriage itself is considered, by any with faith from ANY religion, not just Christians, to be a union sanctioned by God. It doesn't matter if you are Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim or what have you... that term is considered sacred. By asking the faithful to swallow their pride and accept gay marriage, while you are at it you should try forcing a Jew to eat pork or a Hindu to eat a hamburger.

Where I understand that homosexuals feel beaten against on this topic so does the other side. This is a case of beliefs and emotions being ignored by the other side.. for both sides.

You get the country to call every union a Civil Union for legal terms and a Marriage merely for the spiritual and I will bet you would see a wider acceptance of the situation. Comprimise needs to go both ways on this one or one group is going to be shattered and I'm not yet sure which side that will be.

 

[glockmail]

... status...

... status...

...status ...

Again, you can't legislate "status".