Gay Rights

[glockmail]

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.

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

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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.

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.

 

[glockmail]

...

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.

You've changed your argument. Gays have long had the ability to enjoy all the same rights by filing the proper legal papers without offending a large majority of Americans by changing the definition of marriage.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Thanks for the response.

Measure refers to what American society will use to determine whether this matter has been closed. Up to this point, what was really going on with rights issues in our society was establishing the basis for a professional grievance industry.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You've changed your argument. Gays have long had the ability to enjoy all the same rights by filing the proper legal papers without offending a large majority of Americans by changing the definition of marriage.

I'm not changing my argument, Glock, I'm saying that homosexuals want equality. Not contrived, sort of, but a different kind of equality. Heterosexuals get married and that's it. They get all the rights, benefits, and official status that one gets when one enters into the institution of marriage. Homosexuals get married and the Federal Government and State Governments don't recognize it. In order to have the same rights and benefits they have to get power of attorney. And that doesn't give them the same so-called tax benefits that married couples enjoy, which whether or not they enjoy it doesn't matter. Homosexual married couples want to be taxed the same has heterosexual married couples, even if it sucks. Homosexual married couples want the same divorce protections that heterosexual married couples have.

Society might not accept homosexuals, their lifestyles, their marriages, or their status - but the government should treat all people the same. It does not do that now. Even though homosexual couples can get some of the same benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy through power of attorney, it is not equal.

There is no such thing as separate but equal. We already learned that in this country.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Thanks for the response.

Measure refers to what American society will use to determine whether this matter has been closed. Up to this point, what was really going on with rights issues in our society was establishing the basis for a professional grievance industry.

Professional grievance industry sounds a little too "conspiracy theory" for me.

I don't know how to answer this question. How would we measure the success of the Civil Rights Act? Or the Americans with Disabilities Act? I'm ignorant of this issue.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Both examples, women's rights and others have become professional grievance industries. There is nothing conspiratorial to it.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Both examples, women's rights and others have become professional grievance industries. There is nothing conspiratorial to it.

What do you mean? NAACP? Non-profits? ACLU? As far as I know, these people don't make much money. They work in this field because they believe in what they are doing. Not much of an industry. What percentage of the GDP do these industries make? How much are their profits? Oh, $0. Their non-profits.

 

[Newby]

And that doesn't give them the same so-called tax benefits that married couples enjoy, which whether or not they enjoy it doesn't matter. Homosexual married couples want to be taxed the same has heterosexual married couples, even if it sucks. Homosexual married couples want the same divorce protections that heterosexual married couples have.

Society might not accept homosexuals, their lifestyles, their marriages, or their status - but the government should treat all people the same. It does not do that now. Even though homosexual couples can get some of the same benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy through power of attorney, it is not equal.

There is no such thing as separate but equal. We already learned that in this country.

Single people do not have the same tax benefits as married people either. People with no children do not have the same tax benefits as people with children, and I could go on. Therefore, homosexuals have no corner on the market there.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Single people do not have the same tax benefits as married people either. People with no children do not have the same tax benefits as people with children, and I could go on. Therefore, homosexuals have no corner on the market there.

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?

 

[jillian]

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.

And a black person can get a drink of water at a "blacks only" water fountain.

So?

 

[Newby]

Single people do not have the same tax benefits as married people either. People with no children do not have the same tax benefits as people with children, and I could go on. Therefore, homosexuals have no corner on the market there.

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?

Ah, no you can't. Why can't the single person complain about the same thing? Why can't the couples w/o children? They are a 'group' just as much as homosexuals are a group, why should they have to pay different tax rates and be discriminated against in the tax code?

There is no such thing as a homosexual married couple, so your argument is moot.

 

[WilliamC]

"You've changed your argument. Gays have long had the ability to enjoy all the same rights by filing the proper legal papers without offending a large majority of Americans by changing the definition of marriage"

So now gays have got to be treated differently in case they offend "a large majority of Americans". What is the big issue about calling a ceremony to legally join a loving couple together a marriage, as far as I can ascertain this terminology is not owned by any religious group.

The Christian majority do not believe that the other religions Gods are real, in this instance what merit does a marriage consecrated in the eyes of a non existent God hold? Is it because christians believe that other religions ceremony is valid because the others religions consider it so, is that not duplicitous, surely if its consecrated by a non existent God then its a non existent marriage!

Gays enter into a marriage with the same level of forethought and commitment of any other members of society. Non-religious ceremonies conducted by state officials for different sex couples are called marriages, I don't see any tirades or debates over the rights and wrongs of this in any of the threads. So the issue is not about marriage and God, its about marriage and gays, its about one self righteous group trying to force there narrow perspectives on another group.

If gays are not going to have all the same rights as other members of society perhaps we should give them a tax rebate after all they are, for the most part, subsidizing the education etc for the children of all those happily married, and happily unmarried Americans.

Get over it and climb down of your self appointed righteous wagon! Did Jesus not say let he who is without sin cast the first stone? If he is pissed of with the way that an individual has lived their life then he will hold them to account on judgement day.
Personally speaking I am sure that there will be a mixture of Angels and Fairies in heaven. If it does not impact upon your life choices leave the gays alone.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ah, no you can't. Why can't the single person complain about the same thing? Why can't the couples w/o children? They are a 'group' just as much as homosexuals are a group, why should they have to pay different tax rates and be discriminated against in the tax code?

There is no such thing as a homosexual married couple, so your argument is moot.

Oh, boy. Newby, newby, newby. There is just no point in communicating with you. You are so blind and so dogmatic in your own opinions, and you don't even know it.

If you want to be constructive and open to having a discussion, then we can communicate. But, this continued criticism of my posts and close-mindedness is just going to make an communication between us pointless.

 

[Newby]

Sounds like a cop out to me. What I stated was true, if you don't want to equate homosexuals to other groups that also do not receive the same tax benefits as married couples, then that's certainly up to you. Doesn't make you right, however.

 

[Newby]

And what's ironic, if you even read any of my earlier posts, is that I am not against gay civil or legal unions. I'm just saying that the reasoning that you are giving isn't logical. You are acting like they are being discriminated against, yet I pointed out several other groups where tax liability is also not to the extent of married couples, and for some reason that's 'different'.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

And what's ironic, if you even read any of my earlier posts, is that I am not against gay civil or legal unions. I'm just saying that the reasoning that you are giving isn't logical. You are acting like they are being discriminated against, yet I pointed out several other groups where tax liability is also not to the extent of married couples, and for some reason that's 'different'.

Yeah, it is different. Single heterosexual people aren't being discriminated against because they CAN get married and their marriage is recognized by the government. Then they CAN enjoy all the rights and benefits of the official institution of marriage. Single homosexual can't do that. There's the logic.

And how about this. You're religious right? Christian? Do you believe homosexuality is a sin? Do you think that marriage is a Christian institution? Do you think that homosexuals shouldn't have the same thing as Christians do when it comes to marriage? Is it because you think homosexuality is wrong, inferior, evil, or sinful?

Do you think that's logical?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here in Texas, if you are a male living with a female (or vice versa), as a couple, for 7 years, then you are considered "married" in the eyes of the state without any formal ceremony. You are also open to tax benefits for married couples, as well as visitation rights and estate rights AUTOMATICALLY given to you (if you stay together 7 years).

If you are a lesbian or gay couple living together as a couple? No such benefit, no matter how long you live together.

Nope......try again Newby.

 

[Newby]

And what's ironic, if you even read any of my earlier posts, is that I am not against gay civil or legal unions. I'm just saying that the reasoning that you are giving isn't logical. You are acting like they are being discriminated against, yet I pointed out several other groups where tax liability is also not to the extent of married couples, and for some reason that's 'different'.

Yeah, it is different. Single heterosexual people aren't being discriminated against because they CAN get married and their marriage is recognized by the government. Then they CAN enjoy all the rights and benefits of the official institution of marriage. Single homosexual can't do that. There's the logic.

And how about this. You're religious right? Christian? Do you believe homosexuality is a sin? Do you think that marriage is a Christian institution? Do you think that homosexuals shouldn't have the same thing as Christians do when it comes to marriage? Is it because you think homosexuality is wrong, inferior, evil, or sinful?

Do you think that's logical?

My point was that each group is treated differently when it comes to taxes, so other groups could have the same arguments about taxes as the homosexual community does. And a homosexual person can get married, just not to a person of the same sex.

Yes, I'm a christian, non-denominational. I don't buy so much into the organized religions because they are more about power and money than they are about following the teachings of Jesus. And no, I don't believe that marriage is necessarily a christian institution, it's more a bedrock of society. There are two aspects to marriage, the legal aspect and the emotional/religious aspect. I think more people are worried about the degradation of the concept of marriage and the effects that would have on society and family. You said that you would allow polygamy also I think? So, where does it stop then? How many definitions of marriage would you allow? I think that the legal portion of it, what is recognized by the state should be separated from the religious part of it. I have no problem with a legal civil union. A religious ceremony is the choice of the participants and the church of course. If the church is unwilling to do the ceremony b/c it goes against their beliefs and doctrines, then they should in no way be forced or compelled by the state to perform the ceremony. Do you think if gays were given the legal civil union that they would stop at that, or would they also start demanding that churches marry them as well? Would you back them in that effort if they did so?

I've actually given this a lot of thought, and I have no idea if I'm right or wrong. But, my feelings are that Jesus said to love one another. If two people love eachother, I don't see the harm in that, regardless of the sexes involved. Especially because I believe that homosexual people are born that way and that it is not a choice. I would never condemn someone to go their entire lives w/o having the love of another person. Now that's completely separated from the sexual act, and I'm not sure how to deal with that aspect of it since I find it kind of abhorrent. I think to most people it obviously goes against everything they feel so they find it difficult to relate, which is why the more the gay community tries to be 'in your face' about it, I think the worse off they are. If they were more respectful towards feelings of those who find it difficult to accept, I think they would be better off. I already know of Christian churches that have openly gay couples as members, and this is in small, rural towns, so I think you'd be surprised at what you found if you saw the true face of christianity and not what you've been taught via left propaganda.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

My point was that each group is treated differently when it comes to taxes, so other groups could have the same arguments about taxes as the homosexual community does. And a homosexual person can get married, just not to a person of the same sex.

Single people "choose" to be single. They can get married and receive the benefits and rights that married people enjoy in our society. Homosexuals do not "choose" to be gay. That's the fallacy of your argument.

And I'm sick of hearing about how homosexual people can get married, but only to someone of the opposit sex. That's just ridiculous. I'm straight and can get married to a person of the opposite sex, but if I don't love and desire them, what's the point? I'd say that isn't really marriage at all, other than officially. Aren't the spiritual and emotional parts more important than the official part? I will marry the person I love, desire, and wish to spend my life with. Straight people can do that and have that officially recognized. Homosexuals can't. That's the extent of it right there. Its not equality.

Yes, I'm a christian, non-denominational. I don't buy so much into the organized religions because they are more about power and money than they are about following the teachings of Jesus. And no, I don't believe that marriage is necessarily a christian institution, it's more a bedrock of society. There are two aspects to marriage, the legal aspect and the emotional/religious aspect. I think more people are worried about the degradation of the concept of marriage and the effects that would have on society and family. You said that you would allow polygamy also I think? So, where does it stop then? How many definitions of marriage would you allow? I think that the legal portion of it, what is recognized by the state should be separated from the religious part of it. I have no problem with a legal civil union. A religious ceremony is the choice of the participants and the church of course. If the church is unwilling to do the ceremony b/c it goes against their beliefs and doctrines, then they should in no way be forced or compelled by the state to perform the ceremony. Do you think if gays were given the legal civil union that they would stop at that, or would they also start demanding that churches marry them as well? Would you back them in that effort if they did so?

Why do you think marriage is the bedrock of society? I think its just a commitment that two people make to eachother. Society just legitimizes it. Having been married before, I think there are more than just 2 aspects to marriage. And I wouldn't combine the religious and emotional aspects of it into one face. What about us agnostics? What's religious about it for us? There might be something spiritual, and that could have some emotional quality, but spirituality encompasses more than emotions. From my perspective, marriage is a ritual and a celebration that demonstrates the love and lifelong commitment that two people (or three or four if they so wish) have for eachother. Its a way of sharing that with their loved ones, friends and family, and community. Whether those two people are the same sex or not doesn't matter. It just means that they can't procreate with eachother.

Liberals don't wish to force churches to marry homosexuals. If same-sex marriage were officially recognized by the government, then that's all that counts. Some churches will accept homosexual members and perform marriages for same-sex couples and most churches won't. I think its an irrational and groundless fear that somehow the government is going to force churches to marry and accept members that are anathema to its principles. What other examples of that can you think of? I can think of none.

This is the only definition of marriage I think there should be:

Consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a lifelong commitment to each other according to their spiritual beliefs, morality, and ethical practices. The government should recognize all such officialized commitments and bestow upon those involved the same rights, benefits, and status as all other married people.

Notice the consenting adults part.

Why do Christians get to have the corner of the market on the definition of marriage? Because they are the majority? That's exactly that kind of mob rule the founding fathers attempted to prevent. Americans live by a philosophy based in principle, not in a philosophy held by the majority.

I've actually given this a lot of thought, and I have no idea if I'm right or wrong. But, my feelings are that Jesus said to love one another. If two people love eachother, I don't see the harm in that, regardless of the sexes involved. Especially because I believe that homosexual people are born that way and that it is not a choice. I would never condemn someone to go their entire lives w/o having the love of another person. Now that's completely separated from the sexual act, and I'm not sure how to deal with that aspect of it since I find it kind of abhorrent. I think to most people it obviously goes against everything they feel so they find it difficult to relate, which is why the more the gay community tries to be 'in your face' about it, I think the worse off they are. If they were more respectful towards feelings of those who find it difficult to accept, I think they would be better off. I already know of Christian churches that have openly gay couples as members, and this is in small, rural towns, so I think you'd be surprised at what you found if you saw the true face of christianity and not what you've been taught via left propaganda.

So you actually think that people should be allowed to love eachother, but maybe shouldn't be allowed to express that love physically because another group of people finds it distasteful?

And you are asking that the gay community be more sensitive to the tastes and feelings of the very people who condemn them for who they are? That's not only an arrogant position to maintain, but it also demonstrates the self-righteous attitude that religious people can have:

"We don't like it, so they shouldn't do it, because we're right!"

How are gay people in your face with their sexuality? By having parades? Well, I don't like the Irish pushing their ethnicity in my face. They shouldn't have St. Patrick's Day parades! All those people wearing green! How disgusting! Same kind of attitude. Do you know any gay people. I have many friends and I have family that are gay. They are extremely nice, normal people. The only thing about them that is different is who they are attacted to. You should see how excited they get when Denver has its pride parade. The sense of community, of not having to fear persecution any longer, of not having to hide from society and their loved ones any more, of unity with others like them is a beautiful thing. Why can't people see that?!

What's wrong with tolerance?

And please, Newby, stop assuming. I haven't been taught anything by leftist propaganda that in the same manner you haven't been taught by conservative propadanda. That's why you think liberals are hypocrtitical. Some are, but the same goes for conservatives.