One Step at a Time . . .

[voluptuary_manque]

One opponent won over at a time. SS Marriage will be legalized, homophobia will be as down market as racism. Get used to it!

 

[Handley_Page]

I really would like to understand the passionate desire of a SS couple to be 'married', as opposed to a legal union with all the legal trimmings as enjoyed in 'marriage'.
I just don't get it (that said; I have trouble with the term "wife" in that context, too.

What is it about the term 'Marriage' that it's so important a word?

 

[Cruel2BKind]

I really would like to understand the passionate desire of a SS couple to be 'married', as opposed to a legal union with all the legal trimmings as enjoyed in 'marriage'.
I just don't get it (that said; I have trouble with the term "wife" in that context, too.

What is it about the term 'Marriage' that it's so important a word?

This is a generalization, but one that I hope is true.

I believe that most people who are fighting for their rights know that they are fighting for just that, their rights.

I don't believe that there are too many people out there that think that this entire political movement is just to change some wording.

 

[Weird Harold]

I really would like to understand the passionate desire of a SS couple to be 'married', as opposed to a legal union with all the legal trimmings as enjoyed in 'marriage'.
I just don't get it (that said; I have trouble with the term "wife" in that context, too.

What is it about the term 'Marriage' that it's so important a word?

civil unions do not confer the status of "spouse."

Hundreds, if not thousands, of laws confer specific rights and obligations on "Spouses;" all of those laws have to be changed to add "or civil partner" before "civil union" is precisely congruent to "Marriage."

In addition to actual laws, there are hundreds and thousands of other rules, regulations, and corporate policies that are geared to "Spouse" and resistant to any blanket inclusion of "civil partner" for things like insurance coverage, medical decision making, and the like.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Until 1980 homosexuality was a mental disorder, then all the homo perfessers got together and had a new vote. that made homo OK. But few bought it, so the Libs went to work to change America's heart and mind.

In a nutshell, Fags wanna be normal. They wanna play house. They wanna be Robert Young and Donna Reed raising kids in the suburbs. Not really. Cuz when the Moon is full they prance over to the White House to flip-off Reagan and remind America that theyre still damaged goods.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I really would like to understand the passionate desire of a SS couple to be 'married', as opposed to a legal union with all the legal trimmings as enjoyed in 'marriage'.
I just don't get it (that said; I have trouble with the term "wife" in that context, too.

What is it about the term 'Marriage' that it's so important a word?

The same thing that makes it important enough to have laws about it in the first place. Whatever that is ;-)

I've commented elsewhere that my personal preference would be for the government to get out of "marriage" altogether. In my ideal world, same-sex couples and opposite-couples* would have exactly the same access to civil unions granting exactly the same rights. "Marriage" would be a non-legal term, and everybody could decide whether they want to call themselves "married" and whether they want to acknowledge their neighbour's "marriage".**

But if government is going to legislate "marriage", then it should do so even-handedly. History teaches that separate is never, ever equal; religions can continue to teach that homosexuality is wrong, but government shouldn't be giving them moral support.

*And for that matter, some "non-romantic" couples; if two people are living together and relying on one another, it shouldn't be anybody else's business whether they're lovers or siblings or buddies.

And poly non-couples, although the implementation would take a lot more work; things like taxation law would need substantial rewriting, not just gender-neutral language.

**We're already partway there; my grandma, being staunchly R.C., doesn't recognise the legitimacy of divorce, so if Bob divorces Jane and then marries Sue, she doesn't recognise Bob as being married to Sue. But if Jane died, and Bob divorced Sue and then married Patsy, that would be okay because Bob wasn't married by her standards. But if it turned out that JANE was divorced before she married Bob, then their marriage doesn't count, so his marriage to Sue does count, so he can't marry Patsy after all... and so on until everybody gets a headache.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

People rationalize justification for whatever they want.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

The same thing that makes it important enough to have laws about it in the first place. Whatever that is ;-)

I've commented elsewhere that my personal preference would be for the government to get out of "marriage" altogether. In my ideal world, same-sex couples and opposite-couples* would have exactly the same access to civil unions granting exactly the same rights. "Marriage" would be a non-legal term, and everybody could decide whether they want to call themselves "married" and whether they want to acknowledge their neighbour's "marriage".**

But if government is going to legislate "marriage", then it should do so even-handedly. History teaches that separate is never, ever equal; religions can continue to teach that homosexuality is wrong, but government shouldn't be giving them moral support.

*And for that matter, some "non-romantic" couples; if two people are living together and relying on one another, it shouldn't be anybody else's business whether they're lovers or siblings or buddies.

And poly non-couples, although the implementation would take a lot more work; things like taxation law would need substantial rewriting, not just gender-neutral language.

**We're already partway there; my grandma, being staunchly R.C., doesn't recognise the legitimacy of divorce, so if Bob divorces Jane and then marries Sue, she doesn't recognise Bob as being married to Sue. But if Jane died, and Bob divorced Sue and then married Patsy, that would be okay because Bob wasn't married by her standards. But if it turned out that JANE was divorced before she married Bob, then their marriage doesn't count, so his marriage to Sue does count, so he can't marry Patsy after all... and so on until everybody gets a headache.

Good in theory.

But trying to change marriage into a nonlegal status would put everybody in a position to argue.

To use JBJ's terminology; "The fags are taking away our marriage!"

People are already saying this to some degree; claiming that it is a slippery slope to allow gay marriage, and that gay marriage will cheapen the institution of marriage to the point that it includes children, animals, and corpses.

Those people can go fuck a burning exhaust pipe in my opinion, but at the same time, think about how much more justified they would feel if anyone tried to change marriage to a nonlegal status?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Good in theory.

But trying to change marriage into a nonlegal status would put everybody in a position to argue.

To use JBJ's terminology; "The fags are taking away our marriage!"

People are already saying this to some degree; claiming that it is a slippery slope to allow gay marriage, and that gay marriage will cheapen the institution of marriage to the point that it includes children, animals, and corpses.

Those people can go fuck a burning exhaust pipe in my opinion, but at the same time, think about how much more justified they would feel if anyone tried to change marriage to a nonlegal status?

I think I said when we discussed this a while back: my "get the government out of marriage" is an ideal, and as a pragmatist I'd be willing to settle for legal marriage that was accessible to same-sex couples.

Though I don't know if it'll make any difference to the hardcore homophobes; they'll always be against treating same-sex couples as equal, no matter what name we give it. They don't need to be justified, that's not the fuel they run on.

 

[lovecraft68]

Making marriage non-legal would wreak havoc as far as divorces. Who would get what? Who would pay child support, etc....

The word marriage isn't what SS affects, its just the terminology of husband/wife being changed simply to spouse.

All the gays want is the right to have what straight couples have. The right to make their union "official"

Its BS it has to be a fight. Religion can dictate it's wrong if homosexuality is in its doctrine. They can refuse to marry ss couples.

The Government has no right to deny this right. It's a separation of church and state. There should be nothing to fight here at all.

This country has a hell of a lot more to worry about than who loves who. Of course they refuse to fix the real problems so they dwell on things they have no business being involved in.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The legal rights and obligations involved in 'marriage' are pretty much universal across the country and around much of the world. 'Civil Unions' on the other hand, are not. And when it comes to those times of intense emotion, like trying to visit a 'partner' in the hospital or retain custody of shared children on the death of one member, marriage trumps civil union hands down. And even when the civil union is stated to carry the same rights and obligations as marriage, all you have to do is run into one bumptious minor functionary who declares, "Well, I'm sahr-ry, but you aren't mahr-ried!" to push a grieving individual over the edge. The hospital where Safe Bet was staying after she miscarried her second set of twins is lucky to be still standing. Amy had a damned power of attorney, fer gawd's sake, and still had hell getting in to see her.

So this isn't just some 'feel good' issue. This is about basic human rights and all the pious arguments about 'just make everyone have a civil union and drop the whole concept of marriage' are naught but hot air. Commitment to one another is about being married, not unionized. It is a legally recognized contract and should be available to everyone. Full stop.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

Making marriage non-legal would wreak havoc as far as divorces. Who would get what? Who would pay child support, etc....

The word marriage isn't what SS affects, its just the terminology of husband/wife being changed simply to spouse.

All the gays want is the right to have what straight couples have. The right to make their union "official"

Its BS it has to be a fight. Religion can dictate it's wrong if homosexuality is in its doctrine. They can refuse to marry ss couples.

The Government has no right to deny this right. It's a separation of church and state. There should be nothing to fight here at all.

This country has a hell of a lot more to worry about than who loves who. Of course they refuse to fix the real problems so they dwell on things they have no business being involved in.

It kind of reminds me of an episode of 'Mad Men'. If you allow me to ramble for a moment.

In the episode, they want Draper to start a nonsmoking campaign for the fledgeling Cancer Society. He meets with the board, and most of them are smokers.

The problem with the separation of church and state is that the State is Government. And all a Government is is a large group of people, remarkably ungoverned (V quote, FTW). And most of those people are religious, in one way or another.

I'm not sure what the precise statistics are, but a large portion of the US is still religious, mostly Christian. The statistics are probably higher among politicians, most of them being older and white. There are probably a few individuals who can honestly hold their church at arms length while dealing with basic human freedoms.

Although, even assuming that is probably being optimistic.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The 'religious' opposition to SS marriage is restricted to RC, Southern Protestants and a few intolerant members of mainline Protestantism. The large mainline denominations, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc., have all come to terms with SS marriage and are only waiting for each state to allow the legal contracts to everyone before they can 'bless' the union. Do not make the simple-minded equation of religion=homophobe, please. It just shows ignorance.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

The 'religious' opposition to SS marriage is restricted to RC, Southern Protestants and a few intolerant members of mainline Protestantism. The large mainline denominations, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc., have all come to terms with SS marriage and are only waiting for each state to allow the legal contracts to everyone before they can 'bless' the union. Do not make the simple-minded equation of religion=homophobe, please. It just shows ignorance.

And don't make the assumption that just because Lutherans have officially declared themselves cool, that not a single Lutheran will ever be a homophobe because of what they believe ever.

Ditto with other sects.

I agree that religion isn't always the problem, but people use it as a shield and a justification far too often for me to declare it nonthreatening to the cause.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556820_457211807641611_214153918_n.jpg

 

[lovecraft68]

It kind of reminds me of an episode of 'Mad Men'. If you allow me to ramble for a moment.

In the episode, they want Draper to start a nonsmoking campaign for the fledgeling Cancer Society. He meets with the board, and most of them are smokers.

The problem with the separation of church and state is that the State is Government. And all a Government is is a large group of people, remarkably ungoverned (V quote, FTW). And most of those people are religious, in one way or another.

I'm not sure what the precise statistics are, but a large portion of the US is still religious, mostly Christian. The statistics are probably higher among politicians, most of them being older and white. There are probably a few individuals who can honestly hold their church at arms length while dealing with basic human freedoms.

Although, even assuming that is probably being optimistic.

Good point, on paper, but allow me to make a correction. Those people are selectively religious. Many have no problem with adultery and whatever their personal sins are, but call upon their "belief" when it comes to things like SS marriage.

When you take oath you are supposed to be leaving your religion at the door when it comes to making decisions.

a religious politician is truly the biggest type of liar hypocrite walking the earth.

God has no place in the Law. None.

And I thought all the Christians speak of God's love? But I guess he only loves if they're all like a certain type of person? He hates gays? I know the bible is against it, but why should it be aren't they his children? I as well as most here would love my daughter just as much if she told me she were gay.

Guess he don't or at least that's what his representatives are showing me.

As Gandhi sayd. "I like your Christ, but dislike your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ" or something close to that to lazy to look it up, but it's an amazingly accurate quote.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

The bible might as well be a coloring book for as much as it has to do with god.

Bible was written by men, several of them. Full of contradictions and fairy tales and too many atrocities to count.

One of the so-called anti-homosexuality passages is the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Two angels visit Lot. The cities have become so unfaithful that they forbid anyone to extend hospitality. They come to Lot's house and demand that they let out the two visiting men so they can rape them.

Lot is so offended by them wanting to rape a GUEST! That he throws out his virgin daughters instead. and he was the good guy!

Sodom and Gomorrah are smite-ed, all of the 'good guys' get to leave but not look back. Lot's wife looks back, gets turned into table salt, yadda yadda yadda.

They say that god smote the cities because the guards were gay. The interpretation that makes more sense is that god smote the city because of their lack of hospitality. The threat of rape was very common (and still is). Male rape has always been used for punishment, victory and intimidation.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19&version=NIV

 

[voluptuary_manque]

As I have pointed out several times before. Do you think I'm arguing with you? A close examination of the Ten Commandments clearly shows that in Bronze Age Palestine women were property. Do you honestly believe that would fly today? Of course not. Theology is an evolving discipline. Slowly evolving, admittedly, but still evolving.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Good point, on paper, but allow me to make a correction. Those people are selectively religious. Many have no problem with adultery and whatever their personal sins are, but call upon their "belief" when it comes to things like SS marriage.

C.S. Lewis had a lot to say about this in "Mere Christianity"; while I think he still accepted the Anglican sexual morality of the day, he also felt that the church had its priorities wrong in putting so much emphasis on sins of lust while all but ignoring pride.

One enterprising researcher from a gay/lesbian community radio station recently counted up media releases from the "Australian Christian Lobby", one of our more pestilent pressure groups, and found they were five times more concerned about Teh Gays than any of the other social issues they supposedly care about: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-reveals-strong-gay-focus-20120608-2017g.html

 

[jomar]

Until 1980 homosexuality was a mental disorder, then all the homo perfessers got together and had a new vote. that made homo OK...

You mean the homo young turks of the APA.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think I said when we discussed this a while back: my "get the government out of marriage" is an ideal, and as a pragmatist I'd be willing to settle for legal marriage that was accessible to same-sex couples.

Though I don't know if it'll make any difference to the hardcore homophobes; they'll always be against treating same-sex couples as equal, no matter what name we give it. They don't need to be justified, that's not the fuel they run on.

It won't make any difference to the homophobes, no.

But it would make a hell of a lot of difference to the homosexuals. Marriage rights won't make people like us more. But one part of marriage rights is that it would give us a bit of a shield against people's hatred.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yes. Once the issue is settled favorably there won't be anything the haters can do about it. And it will be settled favorably. Maybe not this week or even this year but the tide is turning and turning fast. The change in public opinion in the last five years alone has been amazing. A dear friend who is a pastor married her long term partner during that little window when it was legal in California. She presided over marriages of a couple of other gay friends, one of whom is also a pastor. We are winning. It is only a matter of time.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It won't make any difference to the homophobes, no.

But it would make a hell of a lot of difference to the homosexuals. Marriage rights won't make people like us more. But one part of marriage rights is that it would give us a bit of a shield against people's hatred.

A world fulla Mad Haters and Mad Hatters.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You mean the homo young turks of the APA.

Same thing.

 

[lance gt]

That's the thing about legalizing it, it becomes a law. Laws are there to protect rights. In Canada, that discrimination of SS couples was lifted from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and they were recognized by law and by church as able to marry. The issue of whether one or the other was the Husband, or the Wife, was settled by them on the licence. Licences are now being made to reflect SS marriages and just state spouses, with no gender involved, so it applies to MM, or FF respectively. We've had divorces and separations, custody issues, just the same as hetero marriages. What it gave them was the right to go to court as a married couple and have their day there.

No one makes any issues out of it and as much as many don't like it, they won't even protest Gay Pride Day in Toronto. Once it's an accepted thing in society, by law, the issues disappear quickly and an acceptance comes from not wanting to break the law. We take it to the people and help them get over hatred of those differences and learn that acceptance is much better overall for the unity of the Canadian people. So we stand shoulder to shoulder with each other and recognize each other as Canadians, to show the world that legalizing SS relationships is not only good for the couples, it's good for the nation as a whole.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Oh, well put!