| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2009 02:51:37 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
BBWAAHHH haha! You are kidding me right? |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I AGREE with you on that point. |
Sorry I missed your agreement there. It should have been plainly obvious...
EDIT to add: As an appeal to tolerance, can I honestly and humbly ask you to keep the profanity down? It does offend me. (I'm asking this nicely and without snarkiness. :))
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 15:11:33. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 03:59:32 PM · #52 |
oops!
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 16:00:33.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 04:13:12 PM · #53 |
WOW, I never thought this post would get so many hits, and I must admit, most of them were nice, even those against it. Some people did get a bit off topic, leading this to gay marriage. Well, to begin with, if there was gay marriage (or civil union), there would be no need of UAFA, since the current legislation states that any American or US citizen can sponsor his/her spouse. If a man can have a spouse that is a man, then he can sponsor him, so the UAFA would be useless. Now, the reason for this legislation is because there is no civil union or gay marriage at federal level, so American gays and lesbians need to find a way to be able to sponsor their loved ones, just like straight people do. This is what "equality" meant in this post.
About the idea that people may fake it to obtain immigration status, picture this situation: you are to commit fraud to immigrate to the US, and your options are to marry an opposite-sex person and get over 1,000 benefits together with the immigration benefit, or pretend to be gay in a committed relationship with an American, which would ONLY give you immigration benefits; both fraudulent actions are penalized the same way. Which fraud would you commit? I think 99.9% would get in a fraudulent marriage, to obtain the rest of the many benefits together with the immigration status. Also, let's face it, not many people would like to pretend they are gay...
And like some have said already, frauds already exist, so what's the other option? Completely ban anyone from sponsoring someone into the US? I don't think so. Currently, MANY gays fall in a fraudulent straight marriage to obtain legal status in the US, so this legislation would actually LOWER the fraud levels.
On the marriage topic, not too long ago, inter-racial marriage was not allowed, and we now look back and think "WHAT!?". I believe in some years people will look back and think "Why in the world were gays and lesbians not allowed to marry?".
BTW, and also about marriage, this is a wonderful video about traditions. And it applies to straight marriage too!
Thanks to everyone for the interesting debate! If anyone is interested in knowing more about the UAFA, and knowing how to help with the cause, feel free to contact me, or again, go to www.immigrationequality.org and www.out4immigration.org (very usefull yahoo group) |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:09:36 PM · #54 |
| I wonder how many people this would make a difference for every year? |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:18:02 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wonder how many people this would make a difference for every year? |
So, a principle should only be enforced if it's convenient and economical? How about if ONE couple is being discriminated against, it that OK? Ten, a thousand, six million ... how many does it take before you think a principle of equal rights/treatment under the law should take effect?
Seems suspiciously similar to moral relativism to me ... maybe you should take your temperature or something -- that doesn't sound like you. :-)
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 17:18:39. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:28:25 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wonder how many people this would make a difference for every year? |
So, a principle should only be enforced if it's convenient and economical? How about if ONE couple is being discriminated against, it that OK? Ten, a thousand, six million ... how many does it take before you think a principle of equal rights/treatment under the law should take effect?
Seems suspiciously similar to moral relativism to me ... maybe you should take your temperature or something -- that doesn't sound like you. :-) |
On the other hand, we seem to have a list of true grievances which require attention from our lawmakers (this being one of them). We do not have enough time in the day to address all of them. How does one triage injustice? A very difficult question.
In the real world your principle does not work, although as Americans we like to think it does. How much money should we spend to save one life with medical procedures? A million? Ten million? Is there a "value" on a human life? It's just an example of how we like to think very idealistically that we should exhaust all resources to save a life, but this is obviously a nonsustainable model.
It sounds very cold and uncaring to ask what didn't get done by Rep. Nadler while he was doing this. But it's at least a fair question.
I found out there are 450,000 marriage visas granted a year. Assuming the ratio would be the same among the homosexual population and assuming that the gay population is between 2 and 5% we come up with a number of 9000 and 22,500 a year. That sounds big, but it's really from between 3 and 7 people per 100,000 people in the country.
EDIT to add: Obviously now that the bill has already been written it should be passed. I'm just having a conversation here. I had no idea what the likely number of same-sex "permanent partner" visas there would be in a year. I tried to come up with a reasonable guess.
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 17:51:23. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:56:32 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How does one triage injustice? A very difficult question. |
Indeed ... but if the injustice is obvious and the remedy straightforward, why put it off? |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 06:10:12 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... How much money should we spend to save one life with medical procedures? A million? Ten million? Is there a "value" on a human life? It's just an example of how we like to think very idealistically that we should exhaust all resources to save a life, but this is obviously a nonsustainable model.
It sounds very cold and uncaring to ask what didn't get done by Rep. Nadler while he was doing this. But it's at least a fair question.
... |
um, you are a Doctor aren't you? I understand looking at the big picture but that's a bit more than being "cold" in my opinion.
and  escapetooz I'm with you on your side of the stance, but seriously...chillax. We can have a decent debate without being so rambunctious and emotional.
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 18:11:33.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 06:12:33 PM · #59 |
You're Good Enough, You're Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like You.
-----stuart smalley |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 06:17:44 PM · #60 |
I just don't get why same sex couples are not allowed to suffer what the rest of us put up with in having a spouse and all that involves :-) Welcome to it, so we can all be miserable :-))
A lot of the issues can be managed with durable POA, Health care proxies, wills, trusts, direct beneficiaries, POD/TOD e.t.c. but there are some gaps still and I agree it would be a PITA (another TLA in this list). In fact the rest of us should have some of this stuff anyway...most of us should nod rather then glaze at most of this stuff :-). Far more complex with kids in the mix.
I don't see this come up as an issue around here... I mean we can all have sucky pictures like the best of them :-) |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 06:34:26 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How does one triage injustice? A very difficult question. |
Indeed ... but if the injustice is obvious and the remedy straightforward, why put it off? |
Good question and agreed. I only assume though that such injustices are legion and might overtake the system. It would be interesting to watch how a bill goes from conception to final form, wouldn't it? I see Nadler is the chairman for the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. Perhaps this is how and why it has come to his attention. It's also quite possible, I suppose, that this bill languishes "in line" while the big issues of our country are dealt with. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 06:54:39 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It would be interesting to watch how a bill goes from conception to final form, wouldn't it? |
"Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made."
- Otto von Bismarck (1815 - 1898) |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 08:08:39 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wonder how many people this would make a difference for every year? |
According to some statistics, there are about 36,000 same-sex binational couples in the US living in the shadows, plus MANY more living separately (one in the US, one in the foreign country), plus MANY more living in exile in other countries.
And considering more and more people are looking for people online, it's "quite normal" to find your other half in a different country, so there will always be more couples that would benefit from this bill, until gay marriage or civil union is recognized at a federal level, then the UAFA would only be useful to partners that do not wish to contract any kind of union (rare, but it may happen). |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 08:19:42 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It sounds very cold and uncaring to ask what didn't get done by Rep. Nadler while he was doing this. But it's at least a fair question. |
Actually, I don't think it took him much time. Because ALL IT TAKES is to add "or permanent partner" to the current legislation, wherever it says "spouse". So the final legislation is exactely the same as the current one, except that the final text will read "spouse or permanent partner". I don't think it takes much time to do that. It's a fairly simple and subtle change to a current law that would end discrimination against thousands of people.
What's first? Economy or Civil Rights? Economy is extremely important, but Civil Rights are a Constitutional Principle that should be granted to EVERYONE. Something that heterosexuals take for granted, is completely denied to homosexuals. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 09:54:25 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
BBWAAHHH haha! You are kidding me right? |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I AGREE with you on that point. |
Sorry I missed your agreement there. It should have been plainly obvious...
EDIT to add: As an appeal to tolerance, can I honestly and humbly ask you to keep the profanity down? It does offend me. (I'm asking this nicely and without snarkiness. :)) |
Wow sorry EVERYONE that I get excited. I will keep my enthusiasm to a low to appease you. Again, you like to snip things out of context. I said that in jest to the comment about you only hearing about fake marriages on TV. And I AGAIN pointed out that it was in jest.
Profanity? I have to keep "profanity" down because I said heck but you can make numerous references to my age? That offends me. And I have told you that before. But it doesn't seem to bother you any to use it as a catch all to completely disregard my points.
There are many ways to be offensive that don't include profanity, and you hit on them a lot.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 09:56:02 PM · #66 |
I don't mean to get off topic of where this thread is going, but I have been at work all day and I wanted to respond to a post made early this morning:
Originally posted by FireBird:
And as to your "not for straight male entertainment" comment, if lesbians hold forth certain activity in public places, they will certainly become entertainment for straight males. Biological concerns mandate this. |
Let's start with the "Biological concerns mandate this" - so just because you have a penis, all women are sex objects to you? 'Biological concerns mandate' you to make women entertainment? Of course if a couple (gay or straight) is going full at it in public, they have to expect that there will be some that will see their display and become aroused by it. But just because I want to show even the slightest affection to my girlfriend in public does not give anybody the right to gawk at us. Everyone is used to seeing a straight couple hold hands, kiss and hug in public, but it is different if two women do it? I think that is very discriminative! If two guys kiss in public most men would be disgusted - but if two women kiss, 'biological concerns mandate' that they are entertainment?
I am sick of hearing people (mainly straight men) say that they are homophobic except for lesbians - that is very sexist, offensive, and hypocritical. You know those 'lesbians' that you 'love to watch' in porn are not actually lesbians - but straight/bi women who get paid to be your entertainment. Just because a straight women gets paid to be your entertainment in a strip club, do you expect every woman you meet to give you a lap dance? Then why in the hell do you expect lesbians are here for your entertainment? I get sick and tired of telling people I am gay or introducing my girlfriend to someone, just to have some pigheaded straight guy ask if he could watch us. If I wanted a guy involved, I won't be a lesbian in the first place.
I am not trying to start an arguement, nor am I trying to call you out FireBird - I am sure you were just making a point, and I appreciate that and I respect you for sharing your opinion. My use of the word "You" is a generalized statement and not intended directly at you Firebird. I am just trying to share my opinion as well. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 09:58:22 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by moriadelacroix:
Everyone is used to seeing a straight couple hold hands, kiss and hug in public, but it is different if two women do it? I think that is very discriminative! |
just to make something clear - girls holding hands does NOT automatically mean they are lesbians... |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 09:58:42 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by dcanossa:
About the idea that people may fake it to obtain immigration status, picture this situation: you are to commit fraud to immigrate to the US, and your options are to marry an opposite-sex person and get over 1,000 benefits together with the immigration benefit, or pretend to be gay in a committed relationship with an American, which would ONLY give you immigration benefits; both fraudulent actions are penalized the same way. Which fraud would you commit? I think 99.9% would get in a fraudulent marriage, to obtain the rest of the many benefits together with the immigration status. Also, let's face it, not many people would like to pretend they are gay...
And like some have said already, frauds already exist, so what's the other option? Completely ban anyone from sponsoring someone into the US? I don't think so. Currently, MANY gays fall in a fraudulent straight marriage to obtain legal status in the US, so this legislation would actually LOWER the fraud levels.
|
Thank you. I can't understand why some people think about gay rights and think everyone is just gunna jump on the bandwagon to abuse them in some way. I blame Chuck and Larry! :P |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:01:48 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by moriadelacroix:
Everyone is used to seeing a straight couple hold hands, kiss and hug in public, but it is different if two women do it? I think that is very discriminative! |
just to make something clear - girls holding hands does NOT automatically mean they are lesbians... |
Good point - just like just because a man and a women hold hands or hug doesn't mean they are a couple or even straight - I have a gay friend who I hug every time I see and we hold hands in public - but neither of us are straight/ |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:03:24 PM · #70 |
Like I mentioned a page ago on this thread, marriage is a holy sacrament and its the very reason why the Church is against it. I understand the church is old fashioned but for good reasons, and this is probably why-
Lets say the Earth gets hit by a meteor or some other catastrophe. (Lets just say) Most of humanity perishes. All human survivors are mostly homosexual. The human race goes extinct...
Now the TRUE meaning of Marriage is a spiritual right of passage. A true biological union of TWO souls, joined as one, in a natural manner.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:03:47 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wonder how many people this would make a difference for every year? |
I think you should use this point to questions the millions of dollars being spent by anti-gay "Christian" groups to actively fight gay rights. Why don't they use that money for something more useful? Like doing something good in the world instead of spreading lies and hate?
And again, I have to use my wheelchair analogy from the other thread to this point. How many people are actually in a wheel chair? A very small percentage but we are still making accommodations, with parking spots, bathrooms, ramps, anti-discrimination regulations. It takes time in the short run but once things get going, America is going to be a better place for handicap people. And with no huge campaigns being fought AGAINST that progress it is taking a lot less time than it would if there was a huge "moral" and "legal" struggle on the very basis of "should these people be treated equally".
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:07:23 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Like I mentioned a page ago on this thread, marriage is a holy sacrament and its the very reason why the Church is against it. I understand the church is old fashioned but for good reasons, and this is probably why-
Lets say the Earth gets hit by a meteor or some other catastrophe. (Lets just say) Most of humanity perishes. All human survivors are mostly homosexual. The human race goes extinct...
Now the TRUE meaning of Marriage is a spiritual right of passage. A true biological union of TWO souls, joined as one, in a natural manner. |
Wow. First of all. This also implies that homosexuals are brain dead and/or don't want children or care about the fate of humanity. Wow... a big meteor just hit us all. Lets NOT procreate? Come on. That is just really offensive.
As far as souls go. Since when is penis in vagina intercourse required for the SOULS to bond? You are talking about bodies, flesh. That has little to do with a persons soul. Can a straight handicap couple not have bonded souls either? Again, really offensive. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:15:36 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wonder how many people this would make a difference for every year? |
I think you should use this point to questions the millions of dollars being spent by anti-gay "Christian" groups to actively fight gay rights. Why don't they use that money for something more useful? Like doing something good in the world instead of spreading lies and hate?
And again, I have to use my wheelchair analogy from the other thread to this point. How many people are actually in a wheel chair? A very small percentage but we are still making accommodations, with parking spots, bathrooms, ramps, anti-discrimination regulations. It takes time in the short run but once things get going, America is going to be a better place for handicap people. And with no huge campaigns being fought AGAINST that progress it is taking a lot less time than it would if there was a huge "moral" and "legal" struggle on the very basis of "should these people be treated equally". |
On a matter such as this, you cannot convince the individuals whose values are constrained by dogma. It doesn't allow for broader acceptance without guilt.
You make a strong argument. Now if you could find a prophet to support your perspective, it might stick. ;-)
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:18:47 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Like I mentioned a page ago on this thread, marriage is a holy sacrament and its the very reason why the Church is against it. I understand the church is old fashioned but for good reasons, and this is probably why-
Lets say the Earth gets hit by a meteor or some other catastrophe. (Lets just say) Most of humanity perishes. All human survivors are mostly homosexual. The human race goes extinct...
Now the TRUE meaning of Marriage is a spiritual right of passage. A true biological union of TWO souls, joined as one, in a natural manner. |
I respect your opinion on the "TRUE meaning of Marriage" - everyone is entitled to their opinion and beliefs. But it is not that I want the right to have a marriage in your church; my main concerns are to have the same benifits that straight couples get. My girlfriend and I have been together for almost 7 years. She has been a 'home-maker' for about a year now and it is not fair that I can not have her on my insurance because she is not official my 'spouse' as recognized by the state. This is just one example of the many things I find unfair between straight couples and gay couples.
Also, in regard to your 'what if' statement about a world catastrophe - you do realize that there are many gay people that do have kids. Let's say most of humanity perishes and all that is left is 50 gay females and 50 gay males. The human race would not go extinct - those 100 people would reproduce and begin to repopulate. Now if the world was left with just 100 females OR just 100 males - it wouldn't matter if they were gay or straight - there is no way they could reproduce. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:19:00 PM · #75 |
How is this not in rant already? It should have started there.
Matt |
|
