Author Topic: Gay rights  (Read 4490 times)

Loud_G

  • Level 11
  • *
  • Posts: 438
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Drawer of Dragons
    • View Profile
    • George the Dragon
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2008, 09:25:30 PM »
I'm not saying that those are reason alone to ban gay marriage. I'm just saying all of it should be taken into account when discussion the subject. Many Private businesses are against it because it will affect their bottomline.  Many lawmakers are against it because of legal ramifications. There is a lot to analyze when considering such a proposition.

It is not a clear cut case of "the people are suffering, lets ease their pain".


As for me personally....I'm leaning toward the side of "the federal government should butt out completely". Marriage is for church.
George the Dragon   <---- My webcomic. 

WARNING:
Features a very silly dragon. Hilarity MAY ensue.

CthulhuKefka

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • My Facebook
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2008, 09:36:07 PM »
It shouldn't be taken into account though, since the same can be said of heterosexual couples. The minute it gets "taken into account," the homosexual debate is immediately handicapped. By the same logic, it should be brought up in a debate if two infertile people wish to marry as well.

There really are two marriages. One before your God and one recognized as a legal agreement by the state.

Now no one can deny a homosexual person the right to "marry" in their own church. That is, if the church they go to allows it. Like I said, I am against forcing say a Catholic church to marry homosexuals.

A state sanctioned "marriage" is nothing but a legal agreement that you will share in the burdens of the household. Denying a marriage license to homosexuals denies a lot of them certain benefits, whether it be tax breaks, joint health care, etc.


You're right, there is a lot to analyze before considering such a proposition. But while people analyze and argue, millions of people suffer because they are not afforded the same legal protections that marriage offers.

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2008, 10:04:01 PM »
This thread was started in oposition to californias Proposition 8. I would like to state that the bill passed and Gay marrige is now illegal in California. Both Florida and I think Arizona pass similar bills denying gay marrige. I for one do not agree but can only think that there will be a time when things will change. Be a heterosexual male I feel bad that I dont want to ever be married but there are those out there who would love nothing more than to have the right.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

MrPaperCamel

  • Level 12
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Camel Superiority
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2008, 10:29:57 PM »
Prop 102 did pass here in Arizona. I actually abstained from this part of the voting ballot. In my opinion it is impossible to make an informed decision on a bill/amendment when the reasons behind it have absolutely nothing to do with the physical law trying to be instated.

Equality and entitlement are not the same thing. Equality is something we as a human race should strive for. While the phrase, 'Treat everyone as you want to be treated' is a bit of a misnomer since not everyone wants or responds to the same variables, the sentiment is right on. Entitlements just come about as things people think they deserve because they are simply standing in one place as opposed to another.
If it's not on fire, it's usually a software problem.

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #49 on: November 06, 2008, 08:14:42 PM »
Quote
Also, gay "marriages" and relationships are empirically proven to last longer than those of average heterosexual ones.
Miyabi, I've seen statistics that say the opposite, and a higher incidence of domestic violence as well. It's easy to talk about how studies have been done without giving any proof.

Quote
Can Baptists determine if the Catholic church can make women priests? Then why do Baptists get to determine if Unitarians marry gay and lesbian parishioners?
CthulhuKefka, is anyone doing that? This isn't about what churches do with their members. It's about legal recognition, what word is used to apply to that legal recognition, and how that word is defined.

Also, interracial marriages were never universally banned in the U.S. Quite a few states never had miscegenation laws, and many states repealed them in the 1800s. Society was not united on the issue, and where the laws were in effect, they made interracial marriage illegal and arrested those who practiced it. They didn't say it wasn't a marriage; they said it was an illegal marriage. There's a difference. The same-sex marriage issue is not the same. Same-sex marriage does not fit the definition of marriage universally historically accepted in our society. It was taken as a given that marriage included a man and a woman. The states still added on other restrictions after that, within their right to do so: 3. You can't marry someone who's too closely related to you. 4. You can't marry someone who's too young. 5. You can't marry someone who's currently married to someone else. 6. You can't marry someone if you are currently married to someone else. These are all restrictions to marriage rights which states have enacted with no problems.

But even before those 4 are the two inherent marriage rights restrictions that were taken as a given from the start. 1. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex from you. 2. You can only marry someone who agrees to marry you.

These six restrictions on marriage have been universally applied throughout the history of our country. There are minor variations on what "too young" or "too closely related," but all states have a set standard defining that. Mormons and other small groups tried breaking restrictions 5 and 6, but were rejected all the way to the Supreme Court. Societies that preceded ours did not always follow restriction 2, but it's been followed for several hundred years.

The granddaddy of them all is restriction 1, so much so that it's by default included in what the word "marriage" itself means. If you drop that restriction, you remove a large percentage of the significance of the word.
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #50 on: November 06, 2008, 11:02:06 PM »
 I wonder what the difference is between a marriage and a civil union?  If a civil union affords the exact same rights as a marriage, then all that were previously stated as a "marriage" would be a civil union by government standards, and the word marriage would only apply to those who are married through their church.  I understand that the bible frowns on homsexuality, but it also accused epiliptics as being possessed by the devil, and while I may feel that way about my wife sometimes, it is not actually true. 
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

CthulhuKefka

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • My Facebook
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2008, 01:12:43 AM »
I can understand why most religious groups are vehemently against homosexual marriage, but I cannot understand their opposition to at least "civil unions." Let's say for a second that the religions get what they want and marriage is finally declared between a man and a woman only. They have their victory then. Their "traditional values and family" are intact. But it wouldn't stop there, would it? It would keep going until even homosexuals couldn't even get civil unions.

The whole point of this is to allow people that you probably don't even know or would even ever meet have the same rights and legal protections. 

Here is a question. Say you know someone who is, in fact, gay. And let's just say something happens to their partner, but under current law, they are not granted the same rights. If their partner is lying in the hospital and they cannot even visit them before they die, you would be fine with this? Could you honestly, with a clear conscience stand in front of your friend after his partner dies and tell him nothings wrong?


Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2008, 04:12:54 AM »
I'm not against civil unions. I think I've said that in this thread. California has domestic partnerships which are already guaranteed the same rights as married couples such as hospital visitation, etc., which are rights that I am completely in favor of. The problem that some pro-gay people in California have with the domestic partnerships (which were not affected at all by prop 8) is that it seems like a "separate but equal" classification, which goes against the civil rights movement's ideals.

I understand the sentiment, but I think it's a distracting argument. Same-sex marriages are not the same as traditional marriages, so calling them by another word is appropriate.
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

CthulhuKefka

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • My Facebook
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #53 on: November 07, 2008, 06:25:51 AM »
I get it Ook.  :)

All I really want is for all gay couples to receive the same legal protections everywhere that a heterosexual couple has. In my opinion, as long as they have that, they can call it whatever.  :)

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #54 on: November 07, 2008, 03:24:51 PM »
Agreed.  It's great to fight for your rights, but you have to know when to stop pushing.  If the door is unlocked, you don't need to kick it in just because the handle isn't the style you like.  Compromise is not always a bad word.  The gay community should meet us half way on this one.
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

Loud_G

  • Level 11
  • *
  • Posts: 438
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Drawer of Dragons
    • View Profile
    • George the Dragon
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #55 on: November 07, 2008, 03:33:48 PM »
I'm not against civil unions. I think I've said that in this thread. California has domestic partnerships which are already guaranteed the same rights as married couples such as hospital visitation, etc., which are rights that I am completely in favor of. The problem that some pro-gay people in California have with the domestic partnerships (which were not affected at all by prop 8) is that it seems like a "separate but equal" classification, which goes against the civil rights movement's ideals.

I understand the sentiment, but I think it's a distracting argument. Same-sex marriages are not the same as traditional marriages, so calling them by another word is appropriate.

Precisely!
George the Dragon   <---- My webcomic. 

WARNING:
Features a very silly dragon. Hilarity MAY ensue.

The Jade Knight

  • Moderator
  • Level 39
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Lord of the Absent-Minded
    • View Profile
    • Don't go here
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #56 on: November 09, 2008, 11:09:05 AM »
Many people are opposed to giving homosexuals civil unions because it would increase the likelihood of spurious "civil unions" between roommates who are not in relationships and simply wish to get all of the perks (such as free healthcare) that come with being in a "civil union".  I'm not entirely sure how valid of a concern this is (as heterosexuals may do the same thing, though it may be more difficult to do so socially in many areas), but it's one I've heard.
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #57 on: November 09, 2008, 06:37:01 PM »
I've got no problem with that myself. If there are two people who are not sexually involved with each other but are confirmed bachelor/ettes and want to own property together and care about each other deeply, then let 'em. Actually, I don't think it's anyone's business whether two committed good friends are sexually involved or not.

Also, civil unions/domestic partnerships are, I believe, all-inclusive. They can apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

Nessa

  • Administrator
  • Level 32
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Fell Points: 5
  • Giving life to demon spawn since 1999
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #58 on: November 11, 2008, 09:24:17 PM »
Talk at Brigham Young University by Robert George, professor at Princeton, On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government.

Makes clear the moral purposes of the government on abortion and gay rights issues. Excellent, intelligent, and fascinating talk.

http://www.byub.org/findatalk/details.asp?ID=5796 (off of http://www.byub.org/findatalk/default.asp)

(about 60 minutes long total, gay marriage commentary begins at about 22:00)
« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 10:05:43 PM by ThankfulNess »
"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter--'tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."  -  Mark Twain

Check out my book reviews at http://elitistbookreviews.blogspot.com/