Gay Rights

[KittenKoder]

People take words too damned seriously ... I mean fuck!

 

[BrokenAngel]

People take words too damned seriously ... I mean fuck!

It is not words. I said this before but asking the religious to accept gay "marriage" is like trying to get a Jew to eat a non-kosher hot dog. We all saw how well that worked out for that poor shop owner. It is about faith and about what people believe is a higher authority, something humans can not touch. You might as well be spitting in their face while you piss on their mother's grave. It is just as wrong to force them to accept the seemingly dismissive behavior on a sacred belief as it is to disallow a gay couple the same legal rights as a straight.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It is not words. I said this before but asking the religious to accept gay "marriage" is like trying to get a Jew to eat a non-kosher hot dog. We all saw how well that worked out for that poor shop owner. It is about faith and about what people believe is a higher authority, something humans can not touch. You might as well be spitting in their face while you piss on their mother's grave. It is just as wrong to force them to accept the seemingly dismissive behavior on a sacred belief as it is to disallow a gay couple the same legal rights as a straight.

But, you see, that's the thing: if same-sex marriage was officially recognized the government wouldn't force religious people to have same-sex marriages. This has been propagandized by right-wing fundamentalists: that the government will force churches to accept homosexual members and perform same-sex weddings. Simply not true. Religion has nothing to do with it.

I agree with you that we should term it "Civil Unions" and everybody gets that, but those who want a religious ceremony can go to church or temple or what-have-you and get married. I think its a great compromise. But, extremists from both sides don't like that idea.

As it is today, homosexuals can not marry the person they love and have the same official status as heterosexuals who marry the person they love. That isn't equality.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Sorry, Sparky, but you're arguing cold, hard law from warm, fuzzy emotion. From the standpoint of the law, whether or not you love or desire someone is utterly irrelevant. There is no law written anywhere codifying a "right to marry the person you love". Motivations are no one's business. You have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, be it for love, finances, sex, or because she has a beach house with a view. Homosexuals have that same right, so they aren't "second-class citizens" simply because they don't want to exercise that particular right, and want a different one that NO ONE HAS.

Let me give you an analogy. It's legal to own a handgun in this country, but not a fully-automatic weapon. Anyone can own a handgun, and no one can own an automatic weapon. But I say that I don't WANT a handgun; I really love automatic weapons, and so I'm being relegated to the status of second-class citizen because Glock has the right to own the weapon HE really loves, and I can't have the one I really love. But the law doesn't give you the right to buy the gun you really love. It gives you the right to buy a handgun, whatever your motivation.

How are emotions and law not inter-related Cecilie? Some of the laws we make are in place so that people's feelings are validated or officially recognized. Why does our government recognize heterosexual marriage? Because the government sanctions contracts between people to raise children? C'mon!

Automatic weapons were banned because people believed that they were unnecessary for personal use and that people who went insane or were unbalanced, like the boys from Columbine, would be able to injure and kill more people than if they only had access to non-automatic weapons. In my opinion, that's probably not true but the issue isn't controversial enough to gain popular support to overturn the Federal ban. Seems like that was a law passed so that people get warm fuzzies.

Same-sex marriage was banned in California because people believed that same-sex marriage and society acceptance of homosexuals would erode social values. In my opinion, that isn't true but it is a controversial issue. Prop. 8 effectively banned gay marriage in California. Seems like it was a law passed so that people get warm fuzzies.

This is a nation founded on equality. What does it say in the Declaration of Independence? That all men were created equal?

It isn't special rights that homosexuals want. Its equality. Let's not even call it equal rights and just call it equality. Homosexuals want to be recognized as equal citizens to that of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can marry the consenting adult that they love and that marriage is officially recognized. Homosexuals can't marry the consenting adult that they love and be officially recognized by the government. That isn't equal.

 

[BrokenAngel]

It is not words. I said this before but asking the religious to accept gay "marriage" is like trying to get a Jew to eat a non-kosher hot dog. We all saw how well that worked out for that poor shop owner. It is about faith and about what people believe is a higher authority, something humans can not touch. You might as well be spitting in their face while you piss on their mother's grave. It is just as wrong to force them to accept the seemingly dismissive behavior on a sacred belief as it is to disallow a gay couple the same legal rights as a straight.

But, you see, that's the thing: if same-sex marriage was officially recognized the government wouldn't force religious people to have same-sex marriages. This has been propagandized by right-wing fundamentalists: that the government will force churches to accept homosexual members and perform same-sex weddings. Simply not true. Religion has nothing to do with it.

I agree with you that we should term it "Civil Unions" and everybody gets that, but those who want a religious ceremony can go to church or temple or what-have-you and get married. I think its a great compromise. But, extremists from both sides don't like that idea.

As it is today, homosexuals can not marry the person they love and have the same official status as heterosexuals who marry the person they love. That isn't equality.

Extremists on the anti-gay marriage side would not accept it because it is a sin against God, or against the Theory of Evolution, or against nature itself. No matter what the argument it is still a couple that is together that can't breed. Example.. if we took all gays in society and gave them their own country they would breed themselves out of existence within a few generations. That is the argument my boyfriend used with me on this topic and he isn't truly extreme, homosexuality just doesn't sit right with him.

Extremists on the pro-gay marriage side would not want to change the title of marriage for one real reason, acceptance. I have been different and outcast at one point in my life, I think most have. In your mind at night you lay there and wish that the world was more accepting. You wish they would have to change, not you. You aren't wrong the world is! It is the same idea with this movement. You force those religious bastards to accept gay marriage under God and rub it in their stuck up faces! Eat that religious right!!! The extremists are treating the religious like they are being some evil bully and I am sure it feels that way but something is going to have go give.

Hell.. women haven't even had the right to vote for 100 years. Blacks have been free from slavery for what, four or five generations? Give society a break. You can marry in Canada.. I know that isn't fair but I can be honest with you on this point. If gay marriage were legal in the whole of the United States, my boyfriend would move to a country where it was illegal. So I know it isn't fair but to live the life you want I'd say either move, accept a change in the wording, or give society time. Allowing gay marriage isn't going to make the religious accept them any sooner and if the issue is forced I would honestly fear for the safety of couples who live in the areas of extremists.

Again.. not saying it is right but there HAS to be comprimise or patience. This is not going to happen easily by any means.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What I don't understand is that if the people of California voted against Prop 8 why can't people see that there might be a real reason? California is just about the most liberal state in the country.

Again not saying gay couples shouldn't be joined legally but the realization that the issue really lies more in the word marriage and not the union itself would help the gay cause. Yes the unions will be opposed by those with more conservative beliefs but if the country could get that word exchanged out of the legal deffinitions I, for one, would no longer have any problem supporting gay unions at all.

Fight the word.. it will be a shorter and more to the point battle.

Yeah......but when a religious group (the Morons), send down a whole bunch of people from Utah to campaign against it, ya gotta wonder.

And, of course, there are the Catholics. I guess it's okay to have gay sex with kids as long as you don't marry them.

 

[BrokenAngel]

And, of course, there are the Catholics. I guess it's okay to have gay sex with kids as long as you don't marry them.

Now I'm not Catholic but that was a little cruel..

Again though it isn't just Mormons and Catholics. Ask an Indian man whether being gay is alright or not and whether they should allow gay marriage. The black community came out in strong opposition.

You are arguing the moral issue when in truth the morality of the issue is going to always going to offend conservatives on a moral level. You can't argue the spirituality of it either simply because you can't argue with every religious leader in existence and even begin to hope to win and you certainly can't argue with every God that is worshiped to gain approval.

The only way you can win is to slowly acclimate the population. How do you gain acceptance? By taking baby steps, changing words so deffinitions can't be used against the argument, and make the argument about rights rather than the morality.

The rights issue gained a decent following but has hit its wall for now. So you need to take the next small step towards the goal which would be to find the weaknesses in the current argument. Argument from conservatives, marriage is between a man and a woman via deffinition and by God's word. So change all titles from marriage to something else. The only other way you are taking the next step is either by waiting and campaigning for 2 or 3 generations or by changing the deffinition of the word marriage which is not likely to happen.

This might be a matter of heart but if you are going to win the war everyone is bringing down on the religious and conservatives you have to think with strategy. -Shrugs- People like my boyfriend and his family as well as mine will just leave the area and find a place that believes in more traditional structures for living.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Which kind of Indian, India or Native American? Because both cultures have openly gay men in them. In India, they have dudes that dress up as women and perform various kinds of theater.

In Native American culture, they had them also, and they were respected.

How's about Japanese with the Kabuki?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

What I don't understand is that if the people of California voted against Prop 8 why can't people see that there might be a real reason? California is just about the most liberal state in the country.

Again not saying gay couples shouldn't be joined legally but the realization that the issue really lies more in the word marriage and not the union itself would help the gay cause. Yes the unions will be opposed by those with more conservative beliefs but if the country could get that word exchanged out of the legal deffinitions I, for one, would no longer have any problem supporting gay unions at all.

Fight the word.. it will be a shorter and more to the point battle.

Yeah......but when a religious group (the Morons), send down a whole bunch of people from Utah to campaign against it, ya gotta wonder.

And, of course, there are the Catholics. I guess it's okay to have gay sex with kids as long as you don't marry them.

What retarded logic, pedophile priests don't represent Catholics just as the KKK and Aryan Nation don't represent all whites. Catholics don't believe its ok to have sex with kids as long as you don't marry them, what a sick way to misrepresent Catholics with outright lies.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Really Ass Chucker? Then can you please explain all the pedophile priests and the way that the Catholic church played a shell game, as well as bought off, all the kids that the priests molested?

Might wanna check your stuff again moron, or, like every other subject that you don't like, are you choosing to bury your head in the sand?

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Then let's pass a law, married couples MUST have children within the first year of marriage or it's an breach of contract and both should be jailed.

That was not the point.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Really Ass Chucker? Then can you please explain all the pedophile priests and the way that the Catholic church played a shell game, as well as bought off, all the kids that the priests molested?

Might wanna check your stuff again moron, or, like every other subject that you don't like, are you choosing to bury your head in the sand?

The Bass doesn't feed trolls regularly, but post evidence that Catholics[other than the pedophiles] believe that having sex with children is ok as long as it doesn't involve marriage. You're trolling with a ridiculous strawman argument.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

I would offer the correction that the "state" did not "establish" marriage. The concept of marriage pre-exists any "state" you could name. The state formally recognized the institution of marriage. It is more correct to say that glosses have been heaped upon this formal recognition by the state of the institution of marriage granting varying rights and obligations (especially under English common law and vis Spanish civil law and the various overhangs from both in American jurisprudence).

This is why I don't believe that the state can grant "marriage" per se to any group of people outside what the institution of has traditionally been. They can, however, give rights and obligations that are embodied in the law currently pertaining to marriage and call it anything they like. Furthermore, I think they should. As a matter of public policy, I think it makes perfect sense to allow gay couples to formalize their relationships in the law.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No asshole...........I'm telling you the actions of the Catholic church as reported in the news.

Watch some news and read something other than your fucked up blogs that you consider a reliable news source Ass Chucker.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

No asshole...........I'm telling you the actions of the Catholic church as reported in the news.

Watch some news and read something other than your fucked up blogs that you consider a reliable news source Ass Chucker.

You're speaking about pedophile priests, who don't represent Catholics and their pedophilia has nothing to do with being Catholic, do the Klan and Aryan Nation represent what all whites are about? Again, this is feeding the troll, but.....

 

[ABikerSailor]

They DON'T represent Catholics? Are you sure? If they no longer represent them, WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY STILL PRIESTS?

You really are that stupid, aren't ya?

 

[editec]

For the 5th time, you can't legislate "status".

Not social status, but official status. Governmental recognized status can be legislated. You don't have to agree to personally accept homosexuals or their marriages, but the government should so that homosexuals, in the eyes of the ruling bodies, have the same level of citizenship as heterosexual married couples.

Homosexuals have the same citizenship status as heterosexuals, and the government certainly should NOT be recognizing anyone's sexuality one way or the other.

I totally agree.

We cAll it marriage, but regardless of whether you're a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, its a CONTRACT.

Homosexuals that are holding out in opposition to civil marriage rights, and who demanding that we call their contract marriage are god damned fools.

There are semantic issues that ARE important to this society, and then there semantic issues which are NOT important.

And calling the contract of homosexuals marriage is in the later category.

It's certainly important that homos can forge that civil union contract, but it is surely not important that we call it marriage.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The answer is simple actually.........

On the license have a box for "marriage" and another box for "civil union". If they are married by a JP, then the JP will check the box for "civil union" regardless if it is man/woman, man/man or woman/woman.

If the couples would prefer to have it called "marriage" then it must be signed by a licensed clergy person. And, there are quite a few churches today that are gay friendly.

Just an extra box on the license, that's all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Logic is definitely subjective for you, Newby.

Homosexual single people have the same tax benefits as heterosexual single people.
A = B

Homosexual people with children have the same tax benefits as heterosexual people with children.
C = D

Homosexual married couples do not have the same "official" status, and so therefore do not have the same tax benefits, as heterosexual married couples have.
E < F

Can I make it any more logical for you than that?

Wrong. Homosexuals married to someone of the opposite sex have the same official status and tax benefits as heterosexuals married to someone of the opposite sex (and yes, there are homosexuals married to people of the opposite sex). And a heterosexual cohabiting with someone of the same sex has the same tax status as a homosexual doing so.

Once again, the law does not care about your motivations or warm fuzzies on this subject.

That is so fucking ridiculous that it doesn't even justify a response.

In other words, you know I'm right and that you CAN'T argue it, so this pathetic crap is the best you can come up with. "Just assume that there's a wonderful answer that EVERYONE knows and is so obvious that I'm not going to say it".

This isn't even a good try.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, Sparky, but you're arguing cold, hard law from warm, fuzzy emotion. From the standpoint of the law, whether or not you love or desire someone is utterly irrelevant. There is no law written anywhere codifying a "right to marry the person you love". Motivations are no one's business. You have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, be it for love, finances, sex, or because she has a beach house with a view. Homosexuals have that same right, so they aren't "second-class citizens" simply because they don't want to exercise that particular right, and want a different one that NO ONE HAS.

Let me give you an analogy. It's legal to own a handgun in this country, but not a fully-automatic weapon. Anyone can own a handgun, and no one can own an automatic weapon. But I say that I don't WANT a handgun; I really love automatic weapons, and so I'm being relegated to the status of second-class citizen because Glock has the right to own the weapon HE really loves, and I can't have the one I really love. But the law doesn't give you the right to buy the gun you really love. It gives you the right to buy a handgun, whatever your motivation.

How are emotions and law not inter-related Cecilie? Some of the laws we make are in place so that people's feelings are validated or officially recognized. Why does our government recognize heterosexual marriage? Because the government sanctions contracts between people to raise children? C'mon!

Yup. That's it exactly. Oh, what? You thought we had government recognition of relationships because love is a many-splendored thing and we just wanted to celebrate its gloriousness by codifying it into the legal code?

Ask any lawyer or paralegal. The law is dry, boring, and pedantic. The people it affects may not be, but the law is. Government recognizes marital relationships because married couples have a unique role in society which, overall, is of benefit to society. It is NOT for the sake of the individuals involved. One of the major benefits to society from marriage is the improvement it brings in the quality of children raised in homes with a father and a mother. You need only look at statistics related to children of single-parent households to see why society has a vested interest in encouraging nuclear families.

I can't think of any legally-enacted, long-standing laws that exist to "validate" anyone.

Automatic weapons were banned because people believed that they were unnecessary for personal use and that people who went insane or were unbalanced, like the boys from Columbine, would be able to injure and kill more people than if they only had access to non-automatic weapons. In my opinion, that's probably not true but the issue isn't controversial enough to gain popular support to overturn the Federal ban. Seems like that was a law passed so that people get warm fuzzies.

::yawn:: This is not a discussion about banning automatic weapons or the pros and cons thereof, so PLEASE resist the urge to wander down tangents and babble about irrelevancies. And no, it wasn't passed to "give warm fuzzies". It was passed, rightly or wrongly, because people believed society as a whole would benefit.

Now, if you could KINDLY stick to the damned subject and actually address the topic rather than trying to take up debates no one has introduced, perhaps you could address my actual POINT, which is that whether or not I want to exercise a particular right I have does not invalidate the fact that I have it, and am therefore being treated equally under the law. Likewise, there is no law anywhere codifying a "right to do what you really love", because the law doesn't care WHY you do or don't do something.

Same-sex marriage was banned in California because people believed that same-sex marriage and society acceptance of homosexuals would erode social values.

Spare me the use of buzzwords. It wasn't "banned", because it never legally existed at all. You can shout, "Banned!" from the top of the roof until your fac turns blue, and you're STILL not going to get your desired effect of making opponents feel like mean, jackbooted thugs, so knock it off with the misrepresentation.

In my opinion, that isn't true but it is a controversial issue.

Completely aside from the fact that I can see NO reason why you are wasting space or my time reciting alleged reasons why Prop 8 was passed (because unless you talked to every single person who voted for it, you have no way of really knowing, AND it's irrelevant to the topic anyway), I REALLY have no idea why you think it's important to tell me your opinion on it. To be blunt, I could care less about your opinion of Prop 8 and the voters' motivations, but it would require the invention of new technology. Why is it that liberals always think the world is just BURNING to hear them weigh in on everything with their personal feelings about t?

Prop. 8 effectively banned gay marriage in California.

Banned something that never existed. Pretty slick trick. Like magic or something.

Seems like it was a law passed so that people get warm fuzzies.

That would be because, like all liberals, you operate on the assumption that your own personal opinion and biased viewpoint automatically represents reality. Therefore, because you have decided, in your own infinite wisdom, that THIS is the only reason that ANYONE voted for Prop 8, that makes it reality. Also, you seem to have decided that because I said the law doesn't take motivation for marriage into account, that somehow applies to the motivations of people who vote on laws. It doesn't. Try to quit vomiting your hormones all over this and think clearly, okay?

This is a nation founded on equality. What does it say in the Declaration of Independence? That all men were created equal?

Oh, boy. Another rousing pep talk, full of buzzwords and not saying a single damned thing of substance. Never mind the facts or the issue. Just shout, "Equality! Declaration of Independence!" and that's supposed to replace any real, valid point.

It isn't special rights that homosexuals want. Its equality. Let's not even call it equal rights and just call it equality. Homosexuals want to be recognized as equal citizens to that of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can marry the consenting adult that they love and that marriage is officially recognized. Homosexuals can't marry the consenting adult that they love and be officially recognized by the government. That isn't equal.

Blah blah blah fucking blah. Buzzword, buzzword, tug the heartstrings, I have nothing real to say, you're all just mean.

That was your whole paragraph, distilled down to its component parts.

One more time, if you can ever start thinking with your brain instead of your glands. Heterosexals do NOT have "the right to marry the person they love". They have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, for any motivation they want. If you want to prattle on at me about love and equality and all this warm, fuzzy shit, then your next post had better contain an EXACT QUOTE of where the law gives the right to "marry the person you love". Otherwise, get on the facts or admit that you have no real legal argument here.