| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/17/2008 10:53:21 AM · #301 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It's no secret that "the big three" proscribe homosexual acts in one way or another. So? Shall we bring out the laundry list of other things they proscribe, which adherents progressively ignore as they make their way out of its cultural stone age? |
I didn't know Ford, GM and Chrysler had a take on this subject matter:-) |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:20:03 AM · #302 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
It's no secret that "the big three" proscribe homosexual acts in one way or another. So? Shall we bring out the laundry list of other things they proscribe, which adherents progressively ignore as they make their way out of its cultural stone age? |
I didn't know Ford, GM and Chrysler had a take on this subject matter:-) |
Don't you mean Honda, Toyota and Sony? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:21:41 AM · #303 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
It's no secret that "the big three" proscribe homosexual acts in one way or another. So? Shall we bring out the laundry list of other things they proscribe, which adherents progressively ignore as they make their way out of its cultural stone age? |
I didn't know Ford, GM and Chrysler had a take on this subject matter:-) |
Have you seen the state of the US Auto Industry?
Ford, GM and Chrysler are no longer the Big Three, that's inaccurate, they're now referred to as the Detroit Three. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:21:56 AM · #304 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
In no way, shape, or form does this issue threaten their way of life.
So why do they have an issue with how others live? |
Jeb, they think it does threaten their way of life. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:26:20 AM · #305 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
It's no secret that "the big three" proscribe homosexual acts in one way or another. So? Shall we bring out the laundry list of other things they proscribe, which adherents progressively ignore as they make their way out of its cultural stone age? |
I didn't know Ford, GM and Chrysler had a take on this subject matter:-) |
Have you seen the state of the US Auto Industry?
Ford, GM and Chrysler are no longer the Big Three, that's inaccurate, they're now referred to as the Detroit Three. |
True, and sadly it looks like it might be the Detroit Two pretty soon. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:30:26 AM · #306 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Louis:
It's no secret that "the big three" proscribe homosexual acts in one way or another. So? Shall we bring out the laundry list of other things they proscribe, which adherents progressively ignore as they make their way out of its cultural stone age? |
I think it's valuable at this point in political history to convince Christians that homosexuality is just another item on this laundry list and not a threat to the core of their beliefs. |
This I can agree with. Being against homosexuality is certainly not the be-all of Christianity.
Mick, perhaps you have been a participant of these threads and I just haven't seen it. I haven't followed all the other threads (although I've been on some). On this one I had only seen your tangential post about taxes before you called me "anti-gay". What I particularly dislike about that title is that it attempts to boil my view down to a bumper sticker. It's as inane as "pro-life" and "pro-choice", or even worse "anti-life" and "anti-choice". Do you think a supporter of abortion rights would simply enjoy being labelled "anti-life"? My view is complex and even somewhat unformed. Ultimately I need to acknowledge that the faith I hold utmost does not condone such behavior. However, the same faith holds dear such values as love and defense of the defenseless (the latter being frankly out of the mind of many Christian conservatives). Any moral code worth its salt is going to have areas of conflict where the obvious thing to do is not clear. Yes, ultimately I disagree with a homosexual lifestyle. But that does not mean I do not thing they deserve the same human rights as the rest of us and may even deserve extra protection for being, in ways, "defenseless" to societal behavior. It also does not mean I cannot love and interact with homosexuals. To sum it up, how best can I model the behavior of my Savior in which he did not condone wrong action, but was often found among those who did wrong? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 12:12:19 PM · #307 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, I understand "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose", but apparently in California nobody's rights are being removed. A word is merely being defined. |
Wow.
WOW.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was pointing out the feeling that a devoutly religious person may say, "you know, if two dudes want to get married and I never hear about it, that's fine, but I do not agree with it and I do not want my children taught this in school." |
Okay, I'm not even going to try to argue with that first quote. I can't fathom that someone could honestly believe a proposition specifically and intentionally designed and introduced to strip away an existing right from a class of people is "merely" defining a word. There is no reasoning with that sort of position, if it is still held at this point in the debate.
Second, I'm actualy pissed that this IS a debate. Again and again I have asked people to get off their high horses and stop debating theory and stick to reality. Even hearing someone obviously pro-gay say that this debate is FUN for them makes my stomach churn. I am sick and tired of being used as a pawn by BOTH sides of the issue to win elections and manipulate fears. Screw your sliperey slopes. They go both ways. Screw your what if's. I am being denied accordances available to other people in a country of so-called equals. End of story.
However, I'd still love to ask a few questions of the good Dr. and the rest here. Hopefuly my little outburst of vitriol above won't clog everyone's ears, because I need to understand the logic. It is opaque to me. I pride myself on my pattern matching, and the patterns here just don't match up for me.
DrAchoo, you suggest that we (or that some feel we) shouldn't teach about gays or gay marriages in school, even by implication, but gays and gay marriage undeniably exist. You also don't seem to have any issues with teaching that heterosexuals or heterosexual marriages exist, by implication or not. In my mind that means you're basically advocating for the right of one class of people to dishonestly deny the reality of the existence of another class of people, even up to the point of legislating them out of existence. Is this really a stance that you believe is acceptable? Is it acceptable to knowingly teach our kids about a world that does not exist, then enact legislation to retroactively make that world a reality?
Also, war is bad. War destroys families. Why do we teach kids about war? Why must we not teach them that the world is a beautiful, safe place for everyone because that's the way we would like it, even though we know it's not true? What is the mandate?
Why is it okay to teach Kindergarten aged kids about economic and religiously-driven genocide? All I can remember about Kindergarten is making Thanksgiving hand-turkeys. Kids in school celebrating the beginning of the near annihilation of an entire continent of peoples! Doesn't teaching them a sentimental, white-washed, US-centric version of history via holiday activities force parents to answer very difficult questions when their kids find out the reality of the European conquest of the Americas? Why is it okay to plant the seeds for these difficult questions, and okay for parents to have to deal with them later on, but teaching the reality of gay existence is not?
Stop debating. Stop devil's advocating. Please, for goodness sake, start acting like this is a reality for actual people. I don't care what people you don't necessarily agree with think unless it's from their mouths, and I don't need you to be their advocate. I care about what YOU think, and what YOU will DO to make this world a better place according to your beliefs. DrAchoo, you suggest that civil unions are the answer. Tell me, when's the last time you called or wrote your elected representatives demanding that they enact your version of fairness? I ask because it's unfair for you to continuoulsy proffer an alternative that doesn't actually exist.
When will the great masses of moderates stand up to demand fairness on behalf of those who can not easily protect themselves, in whatever form that may be?
Again, you can not possibly imagine how amazing/wonderful/reassuring/validating/fantastic it was for both my husband (not mate) and I when he legally signed my hospital paperwork for me, helping me avoid more physical pain. That's what we're asking for. What have you done to make this real for everyone, no matter where they live or who they love?
I need to go pick up a cake.
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 12:16:15. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 12:30:53 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Second, I'm actualy pissed that this IS a debate. Again and again I have asked people to get off their high horses and stop debating theory and stick to reality. Even hearing someone obviously pro-gay say that this debate is FUN for them makes my stomach churn. |
Oh well. Debating is fun, talking heatedly with those of an opposing viewpoint is good exercise, and, as Jason points out, it actually helps to either form one's views or consolidate already-held ones. You might be all guts and butterflies because you're about to get married (what the hell are you doing here arguing anyway?), but there's no need to personalize this to such a degree that an attack is warranted against those who enjoy a good debate -- and they're "on your side" no less. Sheesh.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Doesn't teaching them a sentimental, white-washed, US-centric version of history via holiday activities force parents to answer very difficult questions when their kids find out the reality of the European conquest of the Americas? |
No. You're kidding, right? How many adults do you think there are in existence in the United States that equate Thanksgiving with the annihilation of aboriginals? Not too many, I'd wager, so there are probably close to zero kids asking about these connections. You brought it up for some reason, so I'm just trying to keep it real.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Tell me, when's the last time you called or wrote your elected representatives demanding that they enact your version of fairness? |
You have unrealistic expectations of people. This may have been intentional hyperbole, but if you think people are going to fight what is essentially not their fight on your behalf, you are destined to be disappointed.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 12:50:22 PM · #309 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Okay, I'm not even going to try to argue with that first quote. I can't fathom that someone could honestly believe a proposition specifically and intentionally designed and introduced to strip away an existing right from a class of people is "merely" defining a word. There is no reasoning with that sort of position, if it is still held at this point in the debate. |
Possibly I'm ignorant here. I thought Proposition 8 simply defined "marriage" as "between a man and a woman". I am also under the impression that California has a developed track of "domestic partnership" that affords the same rights as marriage. If I'm wrong on either of these points then I may need to reassess, but you need to show me were I'm wrong instead of assuming I'm simply unreasonable.
Originally posted by Mousie:
DrAchoo, you suggest that we (or that some feel we) shouldn't teach about gays or gay marriages in school, even by implication, but gays and gay marriage undeniably exist. You also don't seem to have any issues with teaching that heterosexuals or heterosexual marriages exist, by implication or not. In my mind that means you're basically advocating for the right of one class of people to dishonestly deny the reality of the existence of another class of people, even up to the point of legislating them out of existence. Is this really a stance that you believe is acceptable? Is it acceptable to knowingly teach our kids about a world that does not exist, then enact legislation to retroactively make that world a reality? |
I believe I said most social issues should be taught at home. Abortion exists and has proponents and opponents. I do not feel we should be exposing second graders to such a complex issue in a round-about way such as "King and King" addresses gay marriage. I do not think we should be addressing it at that level at all. Likewise, I would be against a curriculum which would imply that the Normal Rockwellian family of one mom, one dad and two children is the only way to go. Certainly this would deny the reality of single parenthood in our culture. Aren't we having enough trouble simply teaching our kids to read and do math and get exercise?
Originally posted by Mousie:
DrAchoo, you suggest that civil unions are the answer. Tell me, when's the last time you called or wrote your elected representatives demanding that they enact your version of fairness? I ask because it's unfair for you to continuoulsy proffer an alternative that doesn't actually exist. |
Well, when's the last time I called my elected representative about anything? That's probably my bad on many fronts.
We all have issues which are near and dear to us. I'm afraid this one is low on my priority list. That's life. My family heritage is 100% Mennonite. Mennonites are pacifists. When is the last time you advocated to have "The right to refuse to kill" added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? When's the last time you've even thought about it? I'm sure the answer is nearly never and that doesn't bother me in the least. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 12:50:38 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Second, I'm actualy pissed that this IS a debate. Again and again I have asked people to get off their high horses and stop debating theory and stick to reality. Even hearing someone obviously pro-gay say that this debate is FUN for them makes my stomach churn. |
Oh well. Debating is fun, talking heatedly with those of an opposing viewpoint is good exercise, and, as Jason points out, it actually helps to either form one's views or consolidate already-held ones. You might be all guts and butterflies because you're about to get married (what the hell are you doing here arguing anyway?), but there's no need to personalize this to such a degree that an attack is warranted against those who enjoy a good debate -- and they're "on your side" no less. Sheesh. |
Thanks for that, Louis. Mousie, it was actually your earlier post that made be take up this debate again, because I recognize that it is a reality for people and it's my obligation to fight what I believe is the good fight. That said, contributing to someone's broader understanding of the issue is fun for me. That's not to say that what you go through on a daily basis is fun, but if I can move someone's opinion just one step further in what I consider the right direction, I think I'm helping. But to do that, I also feel like you need to find some common footing on which to build an argument. DrAchoo makes that easy because he is intelligent and open to ideas he may not agree with. There are many others I wouldn't begin to have this debate with because I think they are too closed-minded to find that comon footing with. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 01:44:07 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Tell me, when's the last time you called or wrote your elected representatives demanding that they enact your version of fairness? |
Originally posted by Louis:
You have unrealistic expectations of people. This may have been intentional hyperbole, but if you think people are going to fight what is essentially not their fight on your behalf, you are destined to be disappointed. |
Actually, that's not true. There are many of us that do exactly that.
I'm a Silent Witness, a member of my church's GLBT justice initiative, we DO write our representatives as a part of that, we show up at demonstrations of support at the Capitol to protest anti-gay legislation.
We are few, but we are committed and vocal.
I'm from a generation that was raised on equal rights and standing up for what we believe despite whether or not The Establishment says otherwise.
There are organizations cropping up right and left who care and ARE taking an active part in the community for education and awareness.
Common Roads
PFLAG
These are just three of the organizations in central Pennsylvania who support gay rights and equality that are actively working today and into the future.
Yes, there is forward progress being made.
Please remember that there are people like us out here who DO care, who ARE active, and not just because there are those of you whom we love unequivocally, but because it IS what we believe to be right. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 01:45:44 PM · #312 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Okay, I'm not even going to try to argue with that first quote. I can't fathom that someone could honestly believe a proposition specifically and intentionally designed and introduced to strip away an existing right from a class of people is "merely" defining a word. There is no reasoning with that sort of position, if it is still held at this point in the debate. |
Possibly I'm ignorant here. I thought Proposition 8 simply defined "marriage" as "between a man and a woman". I am also under the impression that California has a developed track of "domestic partnership" that affords the same rights as marriage. If I'm wrong on either of these points then I may need to reassess, but you need to show me were I'm wrong instead of assuming I'm simply unreasonable. |
Start here: "marriage" is not simply a word, it is a legal status that confers certain privileges. So defining it to exclude certain people also excludes them from those privileges. If California gives "domestic partnership" all the same rights as marriage, which I seriously doubt, they're the only state that does. So it's not a good precedent. If they are exactly the same thing, then there is no point in distinguishing between them. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 01:56:50 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Possibly I'm ignorant here. I thought Proposition 8 simply defined "marriage" as "between a man and a woman". I am also under the impression that California has a developed track of "domestic partnership" that affords the same rights as marriage. |
Doesn't make sense. If "domestic partnerships" and "marriages" are afforded identical rights under California law, and the proposition's sole mandate is to define a word, then the state is inexplicably getting into the legislation of lexicography. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 02:27:50 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Start here: "marriage" is not simply a word, it is a legal status that confers certain privileges. So defining it to exclude certain people also excludes them from those privileges. If California gives "domestic partnership" all the same rights as marriage, which I seriously doubt, they're the only state that does. So it's not a good precedent. If they are exactly the same thing, then there is no point in distinguishing between them. |
Read the wiki on Domestic Partners. It seems, from that, that it is viewed as equal to marriage under California law. That's the best I have to go by. If they are the only state that does, then I'm for advocating for Domestic Partnership in other states. If they are exactly the same thing, then call them all civil unions. Why attempt to change a word rooted in religion which has carried a common understanding for millenia? As I mentioned before, if it's just a word, then the argument is trite on both sides.
Too often in this thread people try to co-mingle two arguments:
1) Gay unions should be afforded protections afforded to heterosexual unions.
2) Gay unions should be labelled "marriages".
No matter how much people vocalize on the thread, I am not personally convinced that to have 1 you must have 2. I just think the arguments are lacking. If gay couples want the priviledge of hospital rights or inheritance or paying more taxes or having messy divorces, then I'm all for it. I simply do not think the term "marriage" needs to be used and civil union or domestic partners can suffice. Someone asked above how one would explain to a child the difference between the two and I'd again point to the difference being religious and civil. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. In the eye of the law marriages and domestic partners are civil unions. In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women.
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 14:33:06. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 02:45:02 PM · #315 |
It amazes me how many people think that as "domestic partners" we as gay people have the same rights as "married" folks...
WE DON'T
Right now my partner and I are filling out paperwork for medical/insurance benefits and it specifically states that we have to be legally married... domestic partners must apply separately. That is just one small example of the type of issues that we run into on a daily basis. When we register as domestic partners we get some of the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple, but most definitely NOT all.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 02:46:39 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eye of the law marriages and domestic partners are civil unions. In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Then the great state of California should not be "legislating" that which is a matter of the church. That's the part that bothers me. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 02:48:21 PM · #317 |
Domestic Partnerships offer many but not all of the rights of married couples -- notable exclusions include inability to claim "married/ filing jointly" on Federal taxes, and the requirement that their union be recognized in all States should they move. With a heterosexual couple, once you are legally married in one State you are married everywhere -- the same does not necessarily apply to couples in registered domestic partnerships, regardless of the gender(s) of the individuals.
Nolo Press has a couple of items which deal with domestic partnerships -- your library may have a copy. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 02:49:08 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eye of the law marriages and domestic partners are civil unions. In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Then the great state of California should not be "legislating" that which is a matter of the church. That's the part that bothers me. |
In some circles that I travel, it's referred to as The People's Republick of Kalifornia because of some of the thinking that implies that perhaps it's a different state.......of mind. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 02:51:01 PM · #319 |
Originally posted by pjangel:
It amazes me how many people think that as "domestic partners" we as gay people have the same rights as "married" folks...
WE DON'T
Right now my partner and I are filling out paperwork for medical/insurance benefits and it specifically states that we have to be legally married... domestic partners must apply separately. That is just one small example of the type of issues that we run into on a daily basis. When we register as domestic partners we get some of the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple, but most definitely NOT all. |
This may be true outside California and I would be for advocating for your rights. I've always couched the idea they are equal within the context of California, or according to Louis, Canada. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 03:09:00 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by pjangel:
It amazes me how many people think that as "domestic partners" we as gay people have the same rights as "married" folks...
WE DON'T
Right now my partner and I are filling out paperwork for medical/insurance benefits and it specifically states that we have to be legally married... domestic partners must apply separately. That is just one small example of the type of issues that we run into on a daily basis. When we register as domestic partners we get some of the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple, but most definitely NOT all. |
This may be true outside California and I would be for advocating for your rights. I've always couched the idea they are equal within the context of California, or according to Louis, Canada. |
Well, they're not ... |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 03:20:43 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eye of the law marriages and domestic partners are civil unions. In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Then the great state of California should not be "legislating" that which is a matter of the church. That's the part that bothers me. |
They aren't legislating matters of the church.
Marriage does not require a church, participation of the clergy, nor any mention of religion/God whatsoever.
A heterosexual couple can get married anywhere in the US without the church. Why should it be different for a homosexual couple? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 03:23:27 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, they're not ... |
This is what I'm going by..."However, in some jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and California, domestic partnership is equivalent to marriage, or to other legally recognized same-sex or different-sex unions." That's in the wiki. Perhaps Nolo is outdated. I understand the union may not be recognized in other states, but the answer would be no different with a California gay "marriage". I'd also wager that a California gay "marriage" would also not be able to file jointly on federal taxes, but I may be wrong on that. So, as far as I see it, they are still equal.
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 15:23:45. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 03:44:12 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, they're not ... |
I'd also wager that a California gay "marriage" would also not be able to file jointly on federal taxes, but I may be wrong on that. |
I think you'd lose that bet. If you are "married" under State law you are married in the eyes of the IRS. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 03:50:40 PM · #324 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
That's not universally true, as you must know. The times, they are a-changin'. Not true here, one of the oldest churches in Toronto (note last paragraph on that page). A picture of the church. A wiki article about the church.
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 15:51:06. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 03:55:15 PM · #325 |
|
