Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/17/2008 05:02:38 PM · #351

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by pjangel:
Again not correct... I lived in California for the past 2 years, just moved from there a month ago.

You can't just stop there. You need to tell me how. I must have been born in Missouri in a past life because I'm definitely a "show me" kind of guy.

Jason, you might want to take a look at this publication, California Domestic Partnership Law... here is just quick highlight...

Will other states or the federal government respect our domestic partnership status?

There are 1,138 federal rights and protections that are given only to legally married spouses. Accordingly, the federal government will not respect your domestic partnership because domestic partnership is not marriage. This is one of the reasons that domestic partnership is not equal to marriage and does not provide adequate protection for our families.
We are hopeful that other states will honor your domestic partnership. Depending on the law of each state, however, it is possible that public and private entities in other states will not respect your domestic partnership status. In some states, where the law is extremely hostile to lesbian and gay couples, this is almost certain to be the case. For this reason, it is extremely important that you and your partner have wills, powers of attorney for health care and finance, and a written agreement about how you will divide your assets if you separate, and â�� for couples with children â�� that you obtain an adoption or parentage decree or take whatever other steps are available in your state to protect your children.

As you can see a domestic partnership IS NOT equal to a marriage. How would you like to have to get re-married if you move to another state because your marriage isn't recognized across state lines?? And from one state to the next you don't get the same rights... If you could "walk a mile" in my shoes, or any other gay person, you may find yourself being more understanding of our position.

And just on a side note... my partner and I have a 7 year old child who has grandparents, aunts and uncles, attends school and is very bright and well adjusted... and we haven't even had a chance to read the "king and king" :)

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/17/2008 05:14:08 PM · #352

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.

And the recently bailed out with tax payer money three.

Message edited by author 2008-10-17 17:14:46.

10/17/2008 05:15:53 PM · #353

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've heard a lot of lip service to polygamy here, but who's called their representative to defend these folks?

Polygamy is irrelevant to the current discussion, which concerns only the right of the state to discriminate on the basis of gender whether two persons can enter into a state-sanctioned contractual relationship, which confers certain rights and responsibilities on both the partners and the state. Nothing to do with three persons entering into a contract.

The state is free to limit the definition of "marriage" to a contract between two consenting adults, but should not be able to discriminate on the basis of gender, as is indeed also the case with all other state contracts.

This is like passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting women from being police officers or men from being nurses ...

I disagree. The state is no more discriminating against gays by defining marriage as such than it is polygamists. Both gays and polygamists are quite free to enter into a marriage under that definition, they just do not want to. No group is being told, "you cannot marry (as defined by the word)". What IS being said is "marriage", for legal purposes, is considered to be between a man and a woman (in the singular). So either the gays and polygamists are BOTH being discriminated against or neither is. You can't separate the two groups. They simply both want to apply an unconventional definition to a word.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

10/17/2008 05:18:26 PM · #354

Originally posted by pjangel:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by pjangel:
Again not correct... I lived in California for the past 2 years, just moved from there a month ago.

You can't just stop there. You need to tell me how. I must have been born in Missouri in a past life because I'm definitely a "show me" kind of guy.

Jason, you might want to take a look at this publication, California Domestic Partnership Law... here is just quick highlight...

Will other states or the federal government respect our domestic partnership status?

We've been through this. Unfortunately those same states and the federal government do not recognize California's "gay marriage" either. So you have gained nothing by being declared "married" in California. You've gained nothing in California (because the state already viewed marriage and domestic partnership as equal) and you've gained nothing in other states (because the states are free to deny rights to both unions as they see fit).

Spork99

OM System OM-1

10/17/2008 05:18:29 PM · #355

Originally posted by yanko:

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.

And the recently bailed out with tax payer money three.

Actually, the government/taxpayers didn't give the companies any money, the government just said it would guarantee up to $25B in loans. Those loans will still come from banks and the companies will still have to pay them off, the taxpayer only loses if they borrow and go under and the loans can't be paid by selling off existing assets.

10/17/2008 05:24:23 PM · #356

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by pjangel:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by pjangel:
Again not correct... I lived in California for the past 2 years, just moved from there a month ago.

You can't just stop there. You need to tell me how. I must have been born in Missouri in a past life because I'm definitely a "show me" kind of guy.

Jason, you might want to take a look at this publication, California Domestic Partnership Law... here is just quick highlight...

Will other states or the federal government respect our domestic partnership status?

We've been through this. Unfortunately those same states and the federal government do not recognize California's "gay marriage" either. So you have gained nothing by being declared "married" in California. You've gained nothing in California (because the state already viewed marriage and domestic partnership as equal) and you've gained nothing in other states (because the states are free to deny rights to both unions as they see fit).

Jason,
Again, walk a mile in our shoes and you would experience the inequalities that we experience... and then try to justify your position. Regardless of if it's in California or any of the other 49 states.
At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree!

10/17/2008 05:30:13 PM · #357

Originally posted by pjangel:

If it makes you feel better, I'm not naive enough to think you don't have a difficult life. I just think, for the sake of this argument, you may not gain the rights you think by being declared "married" by a state.

Hey, look on the bright side. You have a wonderful daughter. I'm guessing that would have been unheard of even 20 years ago. Progress has been made. Progress can still be made. My only argument here is that progress need not be dependent on the term "married" to occur. Why pick that fight when the country clearly does not want it? Why not fight for domestic partnerships to be recognized across the country? Sometimes people make their fight harder than it necessarily need be.

10/17/2008 05:42:14 PM · #358

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by pjangel:
Jason,
Again, walk a mile in our shoes and you would experience the inequalities that we experience... and then try to justify your position. Regardless of if it's in California or any of the other 49 states.
At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree!

If it makes you feel better, I'm not naive enough to think you don't have a difficult life. I just think, for the sake of this argument, you may not gain the rights you think by being declared "married" by a state.

Hey, look on the bright side. You have a wonderful daughter. I'm guessing that would have been unheard of even 20 years ago. Progress has been made. Progress can still be made. My only argument here is that progress need not be dependent on the term "married" to occur. Why pick that fight when the country clearly does not want it? Why not fight for domestic partnerships to be recognized across the country? Sometimes people make their fight harder than it necessarily need be.

Sometimes people make people fight harder than they necessarily need to.

Message edited by author 2008-10-17 17:42:41.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

10/17/2008 05:48:00 PM · #359

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Sometimes people make people fight harder than they necessarily need to.

Probably true. Possibly irrelevant to this situation. The question in my mind is what are we trying to accomplish? If we are trying to gain legal rights for gay couples, I think that's noble. If we are trying to twist the arms of the devoutly religious behind their back until they squeak, "OK, YOU'RE MARRIED!", I think that is merely attempting to reciprocate cruelty.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

10/17/2008 05:56:13 PM · #360

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Again, I have to ask why should religious institutions have any claim on the term "marriage" and its derivatives?

Religion no longer has a requisite part in a wedding or the resulting marriage.

As to your query "Why pick that fight when the country clearly doesn't want it?" that's like asking a black man in the 1960's "Why do you want to sit in the front of the bus, when no one wants you there?". Not picking that fight is the same as telling the bigots, religious or otherwise, that they win.

10/17/2008 06:02:15 PM · #361

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

As to your query "Why pick that fight when the country clearly doesn't want it?" that's like asking a black man in the 1960's "Why do you want to sit in the front of the bus, when no one wants you there?". Not picking that fight is the same as telling the bigots, religious or otherwise, that they win.

That is a reasonable point. I guess the difference is between practicality and ideology. If there is urgency to the situation (and I would think there is) then you need to fight along the path of least resistance. If there isn't urgency, then fight the good fight.

One remaining difference between the civil rights movement and the current one is blacks were fighting for the right to do things everybody was doing. Gays are fighting for something new (ie. forming unions between two people of the same gender). I still there there is an important difference there. One group is fighting to do things the exact same way the rest of the people are doing (drinking from the water fountain, sitting on the bus etc). Here one group is fighting to do things their way and not the way everybody else is doing it. I know we can go back and forth about that, but I see it as different.

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

10/17/2008 06:03:05 PM · #362

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by pjangel:
Jason,
Again, walk a mile in our shoes and you would experience the inequalities that we experience... and then try to justify your position. Regardless of if it's in California or any of the other 49 states.
At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree!

If it makes you feel better, I'm not naive enough to think you don't have a difficult life. I just think, for the sake of this argument, you may not gain the rights you think by being declared "married" by a state.

Hey, look on the bright side. You have a wonderful daughter. I'm guessing that would have been unheard of even 20 years ago. Progress has been made. Progress can still be made. My only argument here is that progress need not be dependent on the term "married" to occur. Why pick that fight when the country clearly does not want it? Why not fight for domestic partnerships to be recognized across the country? Sometimes people make their fight harder than it necessarily need be.

Again, I have to ask why should religious institutions have any claim on the term "marriage" and its derivatives?

Religion no longer has a requisite part in a wedding or the resulting marriage.

As to your query "Why pick that fight when the country clearly doesn't want it?" that's like asking a black man in the 1960's "Why do you want to sit in the front of the bus, when no one wants you there?". Not picking that fight is the same as telling the bigots, religious or otherwise, that they win.

Right you are!!!

dponlyme

Nikon D3000

10/17/2008 06:07:20 PM · #363

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I gotta agree with the Doc here. Having a recognized marriage in California but nowhere else is not going to do gay people a lot of good unless they all want to pack up and move there. I think what we need here is a federally recognized domestic partnership that confers all the favorable tax laws and other rights only given to married people currently. I think this is sensible so that geography doesn't get in the way of having all options for employment on the table also. If you can't move out of state when the big job promotion calls for it then you are handicapped.

You can still fight for the right to be called married if you want but at that point it at least would not be based on having to endure financial inequities. Health insurance becomes a lot more affordable, you'll get the same tax breaks etc. In my opinion leaving this decision to be made state by state is not the right thing to do as this is not a state issue but a civil rights issue which has always been a federal matter. Let's face it if this kind of issue were left up to the states we would still have slavery in the south.

I'm not equating the two things but they are of a similar nature. Either this country as a whole should recognize gay couples or quit pretending to be tolerant with such malarky as "don't ask don't tell". I know a guy who got caught having homosexual sex in the military and he was charged with a sex crime and has to register as a sexual offender wherever he goes. This is complete bullshit. He isn't a threat to anyone.

I don't condone gay sex as I believe it is not what God wants from us but that does not keep me from seeing that it is absolutely wrong the way gay couples are treated by our laws. Just today in training at my new job I found out that you could put your gay partner on your health insurance but you have to pay your contribution in post-tax dollars and not pre-tax like everyone else and on top of that the portion you employer contributes is then imputed to you as income that you then have to pay taxes on also. It's just not right. Gay people are just that... people. They don't deserve to be treated unfairly by our laws especially to the end that they are at a financial disadvantage.

10/17/2008 06:08:23 PM · #364

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As to your query "Why pick that fight when the country clearly doesn't want it?" that's like asking a black man in the 1960's "Why do you want to sit in the front of the bus, when no one wants you there?". Not picking that fight is the same as telling the bigots, religious or otherwise, that they win.

That is a reasonable point. I guess the difference is between practicality and ideology. If there is urgency to the situation (and I would think there is) then you need to fight along the path of least resistance. If there isn't urgency, then fight the good fight.

One remaining difference between the civil rights movement and the current one is blacks were fighting for the right to do things everybody was doing. Gays are fighting for something new (ie. forming unions between two people of the same gender). I still there there is an important difference there. One group is fighting to do things the exact same way the rest of the people are doing (drinking from the water fountain, sitting on the bus etc). Here one group is fighting to do things their way and not the way everybody else is doing it. I know we can go back and forth about that, but I see it as different.

You have got to be kidding... we are NOT trying to do things "our" way... we are fighting for the right to be marry who we choose just like every other adult in this country has the right to do.

10/17/2008 06:12:03 PM · #365

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Here one group is fighting to do things their way and not the way everybody else is doing it. I know we can go back and forth about that, but I see it as different.

Which is why it's the issue that it is, and why the fight is there, because you, and others, refuse to see that it's a fight to do things the way everyone else is, no matter how you wish to twist it to your own point of view. In the days of segregation, there was the view that blacks weren't human, which is a huge part of what drove the injustice. Now, it's the view that same-sex couples aren't natural, or whatever designation you decide to put down, thus justifying the continuing discrimination.

I would love for you to give one solid reason how same-sex couples want to do something different than everybody else beyond simply being a different gender. Different skin color, different gender, same fight.

10/17/2008 06:15:15 PM · #366

Originally posted by pjangel:

You have got to be kidding... we are NOT trying to do things "our" way... we are fighting for the right to be marry who we choose just like every other adult in this country has the right to do.

Sorry, I disagree. You are fighting to "marry" someone of your own sex. That is not "the norm". You are trying to apply a term that has had a common definition for millenia. Again, I ask you what are your motives? Are you fighting for equality under the law? or are you fighting to make the devoutly religious admit your union is a "marriage"?

10/17/2008 06:17:48 PM · #367

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by pjangel:
You have got to be kidding... we are NOT trying to do things "our" way... we are fighting for the right to be marry who we choose just like every other adult in this country has the right to do.

Sorry, I disagree. You are fighting to "marry" someone of your own sex. That is not "the norm". You are trying to apply a term that has had a common definition for millenia. Again, I ask you what are your motives? Are you fighting for equality under the law? or are you fighting to make the devoutly religious admit your union is a "marriage"?

Man, you are one stubborn devil's advocate, I'll give you that. This argument has been handled countless times. "The Norm"? Do you really want to fall back on that tired old excuse?

10/17/2008 06:19:26 PM · #368

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I would love for you to give one solid reason how same-sex couples want to do something different than everybody else beyond simply being a different gender. Different skin color, different gender, same fight.

Do you think two brothers should have the right to marry? Incest has always been frowned upon probably because of the biological ramifications, but that risk is minimized here. Just curious how far we want to take this liberty?

I've already given you a solid reason. I've told you the idea of marriage is rooted in religion and those religions mainly do not agree with homosexuality. You are trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.

10/17/2008 06:20:51 PM · #369

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by pjangel:
You have got to be kidding... we are NOT trying to do things "our" way... we are fighting for the right to be marry who we choose just like every other adult in this country has the right to do.

Sorry, I disagree. You are fighting to "marry" someone of your own sex. That is not "the norm". You are trying to apply a term that has had a common definition for millenia. Again, I ask you what are your motives? Are you fighting for equality under the law? or are you fighting to make the devoutly religious admit your union is a "marriage"?

Man, you are one stubborn devil's advocate, I'll give you that. This argument has been handled countless times. "The Norm"? Do you really want to fall back on that tired old excuse?

I don't mean in some biological sense but in a definitional one. To deny that the term marriage has normally meant "between men and women" is to deny history.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

10/17/2008 06:27:19 PM · #370

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I would love for you to give one solid reason how same-sex couples want to do something different than everybody else beyond simply being a different gender. Different skin color, different gender, same fight.

Do you think two brothers should have the right to marry? Incest has always been frowned upon probably because of the biological ramifications, but that risk is minimized here. Just curious how far we want to take this liberty?

I've already given you a solid reason. I've told you the idea of marriage is rooted in religion and those religions mainly do not agree with homosexuality. You are trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.

Sometimes simple common sense is enough. If the world, one day, decides that two brothers marrying is something worth fighting for, that'll be a battle for that day. That day is not this day. If we spent all our time worrying about the slippery slope, we'd never get anywhere.

It has already been countered that the idea of marriage has been around a lot longer than the main religions that don't agree with homosexuality today, so that's not really a solid argument. Like most other things, the current religions have co-opted the idea, they didn't originate it. Eventually, current religions will find most of their ideas and beliefs co-opted by others. It's inevitable.

It's simply frustrating that people continue to use the same old excuses that they've been using to try and keep people down, over and over again through the centuries, like they're brand new excuses and arguments. They're not.

rossbilly

Nikon D200

10/17/2008 06:27:35 PM · #371

Unfortunately, your argument STILL doesn't apply here Jason. Incest has NOTHING to do with this discussion, and your use of 'what next?' only takes away from your (usually) strong debating skills.

Keep trying though, we'll talk some sense into you yet. ;) While I didn't fight / argue / research religion nearly as hard as you do, I see parallels in your current views & where I was a few years ago.

10/17/2008 06:40:07 PM · #372

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

It has already been countered that the idea of marriage has been around a lot longer than the main religions that don't agree with homosexuality today, so that's not really a solid argument. Like most other things, the current religions have co-opted the idea, they didn't originate it. Eventually, current religions will find most of their ideas and beliefs co-opted by others. It's inevitable.

Shannon countered, but when I asked him for some citation, he was silent. I would say that Torah is between 3,000 and 3,500 years old and was likely among the first places in western civilization to codify rules for marriage as well as consider it covenant. In the western world you aren't going to get too much older than that. Potentially you could look to Egyptian sources, but only ones divorced from their own religion. That is not to say that men and women never lived together, but there did not appear to be much binding about it other than the will of the two individuals (or even perhaps only the will of the man and the father of the bride). From the torah you can follow it down to Christianity and then to the Holy Roman Empire which is where it likely became intertwined with a civil idea. Again, this is not to say there were never other ideas governing men and women living together, but these are the roots of our modern view of "marriage".

I'm open to a counterargument that actually points to something.

Message edited by author 2008-10-17 18:41:46.