Discussion: Human Rights

[Cathleen]

I have noticed many posts in the WPYO thread about the rights and the U.S. Constitution - since this is a worldwide site, we ought not limit the discussion to the United States.

There are so many topics to discuss, I thought it would be good to have a thread for some discussion on topics of human rights. Yes it has political overtones, but it need not be restricted as such, human rights are far more then political, they are societal in my opinion.

Anyone care to suggest a topic to begin a discussion?

 

[Cathleen]

I suppose I ought to start with a topic. Since the last few posts have included gay marriage, how about we start there?

I do not believe in gay marriage, I do believe in civil unions. There is a difference to me, I do believe in God and also that marriage is a convenant from God; yes there are rational thoughts that marriage came about for societial reasons.

I do not think the state should become involved in marriage - I think a civil union is best, all rights can be included in a civil union. I do not believe that being gay is a reason to discriminate, a union between two people should not be judged upon the sex of the two involved.

I do think unions should be limited to two parties though. I would not support a union of three or more to be a marriage or civil union, in a legal or state endorsed manner.

Anyone care to share their thoughts?

 

[dollface007]

So, Cathleen, do you recognize civil marriages (i.e., without any type of religious ceremony?) between heterosexual couples as marriages or civil unions?


edited to clarify question

 

[Cathleen]

So, Cathleen, do you recognize civil marriages between heterosexual couples as marriages or civil unions?

As far as state rights, they are civil unions. I believe all marriages (of a man and woman) are civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages. To me a marriage has nothing to do with the state. Just as a person who would want an annulment in the Roman Catholic church, they must first be divorced, which is a function of the state.

What are your thoughts on the issue Doll? I hope others will share their thoughts - I like to learn and challenge my beliefs.

(Hate to start something and run, but I have to get some sunshine on my face, we've had 40 inches of snow in four days and it is the first day to have fun without freezing..... Hope you understand....)

 

[Bobmi357]

I do not believe in gay marriage, I do believe in civil unions. There is a difference to me, I do believe in God and also that marriage is a convenant from God; yes there are rational thoughts that marriage came about for societial reasons.

Who's god and what right have you to impose your belief of God on anyone else? That is the crux of the matter Cathleen.

God=Jesus=Allah=Vishnu=Buddah=put your favorite God name here.

Which one do you pick and how do you pick it without (a) violating the constitution and (b) causing a religious war within our own country? Think about this, there are nearly 80 million catholics in the US. If Bush decides to suddenly impose a state religion based on say, the Southern Christian Conference, how long do you think that will go on before we're at each others throats? The separation of church and state was put into place to prevent that from happening.

Constitutionally we have the right to worship as we wish, even if it means venerating a particularily old tree, or worshipping Jesus (supplanting God in the process). There's nothing in the constitution about forcing your version of religion down the throat of others. And thats exactly what you are doing with your defense of a male/female marriage only.

Try this. WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANY RELIGIOUS REFERENCES. Define marriage. Sociologically marriage was developed for the raising and development of children. Two parents made for a safer environment for the child. But now we're allowing Gays to adopt, so we have to throw out the sociological origins of marriage. What does that leave? A union of two people for (a) sex (usually monogamous) and for (b) sharing resources.

If we go by that definition, then marriage isn't limited to specific genders. The very moment you bring religion into the equation you invalidate the entire argument and your reasons become unconstitutional.

I personally think that its the church that should have no say in marriage. Marriage is a civil, not religious, construct. But thats not going to happen anytime soon.

Personally I see us walking down a very dangerous path. We're being led by a few religious fanatics and if we don't stop and consider the implications , it wouldn't surprise me if we head into a second civil war someday.

I'm not saying your wrong Cathleen. But I am saying your own reasoning invalidates your argument. If you want to argue for the ban of Gay marriages, do it without resorting to religion. You have no right to dictate your religion to anyone.

 

[dollface007]

Well, my thoughts are that if civil union supporters (that is, those in support of civil unions but opposed to same-sex marriage) give the very same arguement as you do, that marriage is based solely on religion.

Let's be honest here: if a heterosexual coworker were to introduce you to their husband or wife, you would never ever question the validity of their marriage. To you, they would be a married couple because they said so. You wouldn't sit there and think, "i wonder if they were married in the Catholic (or whatever) church. Because I'm Catholic and I'm not supposed to believe that anyone was really married unless it was performed in the Catholic Church."

or

"They look like they might be Hindu. Hindu's don't believe in the same God that I do, therefore, their marriage was not sanctioned by my God and they are not reallly married."

Even certain state gov'ts recognize this phenomenon with common-law marriage. If you say you're married, you're married, no license needed. If you tell the nurse at the hospital that you are that dying man's wife, she will let you sit at his bedside.

In our society, if someone says, "This is my family," we generally accept it as so and don't question it. EXCEPT when it comes to homosexuals (perhaps the same could be said about interracial couples). Homosexuals want their families to be recognized as families without being hit with a double standard. Civil Unions, might be a step in the right direction, but it's really "separate but equal" being applied to "fags" instead of "coloreds."

 

[BlueSugar]

In our society, if someone says, "This is my family," we generally accept it as so and don't question it. EXCEPT when it comes to homosexuals (perhaps the same could be said about interracial couples). Homosexuals want their families to be recognized as families without being hit with a double standard. Civil Unions, might be a step in the right direction, but it's really "separate but equal" being applied to "fags" instead of "coloreds."

Not so much interracial couples anymore... but poly relation couples. Except inside the Mormon religion.

 

[Bobmi357]

If you try to ignore the issue of gay vs hetero and look at the larger picture, what I find troubling is the idea that its suddenly become acceptable to limit the rights and freedoms of one class of people just because they don't fit into someone else's mindset of whats normal.

Since 9/11 there has been a steady chipping away at the individual rights and freedoms, all done on the belief that we're at war. The patriot act allows the government to examine your travel plans, what you borrow from a library, even your telephone and net conversations.

Reductions made in one's freedoms happen only because we've allowed them to happen. Like frightened sheep we've allowed our government and the christian run republican party to use our fear to reduce our liberties, paving the way for even further reductions in personal liberties.

You (meaning anyone reading this and not one particular person) may not think that its ok, religiously, for homosexuals to marry. Thats ok, its your opinion. But you do not have the right to limit the personal freedoms of your fellow citizens.

I suppose I shouldn't really be bothered by all this, after all, I'm not gay and I'm already happily married in a state acceptable marriage. Unfortunately it does bother me, a lot. It concerns me because I see some striking similarities between what is going on here and now and what happened in Germany during the early 1930's.

When Hitler came to power in the 30s he did it by setting one group apart from the rest, making them "different". The process of dehumanizing those of jewish faith didn't happen overnight. It took a long time laying the foundation. Hitler didn't immediately set up death camps for the extermination of the Jews when he came to power. Instead he slowly chipped away at their rights and set them apart from the rest of the population. Whenever you set a group apart from the rest of the population, you set them up for abuse and you set yourself up for loss of freedoms in the name of protecting you!

Lets face facts here people. A lot of industry doesn't want to see Gays have recognized marriages. If they did, they'd have to extend health care, insurance benefits, family leaves etc. The almighty dollar, not the almighty, is the real driving force behind this, and the sheep of this country are swallowing it hook line and sinker.

 

[Kissophile]

Much of the problem in the so-called gay marriage issue is that we use the single word "marriage" to refer to two entirely different constructs. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is a joining of church and state with respect to marriage that has been in effect since the beginning of our country.

Marriage is a legal joining of two people such that the entity created by the pair has legal standing and each individual has a different legal status than he or she would have as an unmarried person. It is also the case that the state has granted to numerous religious institutions the right to grant state-approved marriage licenses.

The problem within the public discussion of any issue that involves the word "marriage" is that a great many people think in terms of the religious ceremony. Since most religious organizations set up their own criteria for whom they will sanction a marriage rite, many people believe that it's part of natural law that one must qualify for marriage by meeting certain standards.

The state does set certain standards for marriage - but they have mostly to do with meeting the age requirement for entering into a contract and submitting a few odds and ends of paperwork (blood tests, an application, and so on).

In my view it is this confusion between the religious rite that the state has allowed to substitute for its own bare ceremony and the legal process that creates a state-sanctioned married couple that is at the heart of the issue. And this confusion is the break in the dike that the conservative movement is exploiting in its efforts to discriminate agains homosexuals. This is a crassly cynical and dangerously inhumane course of action.

This matter disturbs me profoundly. It is proceeding along precisely the same lines as the racial civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s. Conservative elements in society today have marshalled the same arguments against rights for homosexuals that were used to combat the advancement of civil rights to those of non-white races.

Will it take another Martin Luther King, Jr. to "win" an equality of rights that homosexuals ought to enjoy already? Will it take a civil rights movement, complete with murders sanctioned by groups like the Ku Klux Klan? What will it take before our entire country finally accepts the full meaning of the words, "...that all men are created equal" - what will it take?

 

[Cathleen]

Well, Bob you answered the very question you ask of me. I (me) believe that a marriage is a civil union, here in the US you need a marriage license - by the state.

Civil unions are a function of the state, not a church. My belief is that marriage has to do with God (insert any name you wish). Totally separate, keeping the division of church and state.

In a simple equation, all married people have a civil union - they have the state license. Not all civil unions are marriages. I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

If I was introduced to a couple, what I feel 'religiously' has no bearing on what I think their rights should be regarding state rights - no question, ALL civil unions should get the exact same rights. There is no religion brought into the union - unless the two wish so. Then it would be a church matter and the state should not become involved....... just as I agree the church has no business in a civil union.

 

[Bobmi357]

Civil unions are a function of the state, not a church. My belief is that marriage has to do with God (insert any name you wish). Totally separate, keeping the division of church and state.

In a simple equation, all married people have a civil union - they have the state license. Not all civil unions are marriages. I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

You're playing word games Cathleen, whether you call it a marriage, a civil union or a PFTPOFF*, its all the same thing.

Civil unions as proposed by those few progressive states (or perhaps they aren't progressive, but merely damned) do not confer the same level of legal rights on the couple. In many cases companies do not need to extend medical coverage to a civil partner, they can't file as married when doing taxes. People within civil unions are not confered the same level of legal respect as a m/f couple that recieve a marriage from a justice of the peace.

If you want to call someone married in a church "married" and someone married in front of a judge a "civil union" fine. But then MAKE the folks that get married in a church repeat the process in front of a judge in order to get the benefits of a civil union. And amend the laws to not recognize church marriages.

Sounds silly doesn't it? My point is simply that sexual orientation should not be sufficient reason to deny someone their basic rights. Convicted Felons have their rights denied to them in jail. But these people want nothing more than you and I take for granted. Why punish them for being Gay?

Kissy's got it right. Its going to take something really ugly to shock the majority of americans to wake up and see this for what its really for. I just hope it won't take too high of a body count.


* Pairing for the purposes of fucking forever.

 

[Cathleen]

I totally support all the rights for all the people Bob, that is what I am trying to say - there should not be a question of that, if one civil union couple gets 'A,B,C' then ALL civil unions get the exact same.

I am not at all trying to say the rights should be denied, hardly, I had worked hard for my cousin to receive equal medical coverage while he was in a monogamous, homosexual relationship. Unfortunately the idea of civil unions with regard to equal rights was but a small seed of an issue. More unfortunately he is no longer here to receive those right that I will support all those in civil unions ought to share.

I think the word marriage should not be part of the debate - it is what seems to fuel a fire that should not be burning.

 

[dollface007]

I think the word marriage should not be part of the debate - it is what seems to fuel a fire that should not be burning.

Cathleen, don't you see that YOU are making the word "marriage" part of the debate by insisting that civil unions and marriages are two separate entities once homosexuals are involved? Is the CU vs. marriage dichotomy really a hot button issue when people are only referring to heterosexuals? I don't think so.

Why are you privileged to marry just because you fuck men? If a God-fearing homosexual couple wants to get married (believe me, there are plenty) and their church/state/dog supports it, what the hell does that have to do with you?

 

[Cathleen]

Cathleen, don't you see that YOU are making the word "marriage" part of the debate by insisting that civil unions and marriages are two separate entities once homosexuals are involved? Is the CU vs. marriage dichotomy really a hot button issue when people are only referring to heterosexuals? I don't think so.

Why are you privileged to marry just because you fuck men? If a God-fearing homosexual couple wants to get married (believe me, there are plenty) and their church/state/dog supports it, what the hell does that have to do with you?

It has nothing to do with me Dollface, it is just my opinion. If the state allows it I have no problem, I'm just saying I believe 'marriage' is entirely different from a civil union - that's all, to me they are different.

I guess I am being unclear - actually I think I was being too narrow. I was looking at this issue just from the standpoint of rights, such as medical benefits etc.. If the church/state/dog supports it I would too, no problem, I believe the state should not be part of any union called a 'marriage', kind of like they (the state) give all the 'gifts' to the couple (all the same rights). Should the couple (hetro or homosexual) want to further the union they can; and I have no doubt they can find a church/dog to provide them with that additional vow.

I think the state should recognize all unions. I don't think the state should deal with any marriage whatsoever. I know I use the word marriage, just as the debate uses it - it is the crux of the debate. I just think it should be taken out of the equation, that the state should provide equal rights to all unions - whether they are homo or hetrosexual. I am not anti-gay, or discriminating, I want all unions to be treated the same.

Here in Massachusetts, the debate is about 'gay marriage', and I think until that dang word is tossed out it will always touch a nerve. I wish it weren't so, I remember going to the 'commitment ceremony' of two friends (their words) and it was so wonderful, they are a great couple, so devoted to each other, two as one - it was lovely. What made me sad was that the state didn't see them as one - they're two individuals. I want them to be able to have a civil union - so that they enjoy the benefits the state allows any other civil union.

Those are my opinions and thoughts on the issue....... I am not against anything vis a vis the state. I do see a difference with regard to a marriage, that is my personal belief is all.

 

[dollface007]

Is anyone else thoroughly confused?

 

[Cathleen]

Doll, please feel free to ask me a question. I guess I am not being clear with my thoughts but I am willing to try more.

If we are talking about equal rights, which are given by the state, then all civil unions should be treated equally.

Marriage, in my opinion is a totally different union - kind of like the icing on the cake........ ?? not sure if that is a good analogy but it is as if any rights, given by the state, should apply to all unions.

I believe in civil unions for any couple, no matter their makeup, two hetrosexual people or two homosexual people....... no matter, all should get the same rights.

Sorry, I seem to be confusing you... I don't mean to at all.


edit: I wonder if this might help with clarity. The civil union is the foundation - it is where all rights are given - it is the cake.

The icing, if some choose it is the 'marriage'. Not everyone believes in marriage. But they are free to go to their temple/church/synagogue etc for the icing.

I'm not sure I would go that route, justice of the peace, a judge etc may be the right avenue for me should I get to that level of commitment.


* Perhaps someone has another topic, if they wish. *

 

[Denae]

Voting in Iraq

Not sure if this is necessarily a topic to be discussed, but it's on my mind.

Polls open today in Iraq for their first free elections in 50 years.

I wish the voters courage as they place their votes.

We take our rights for granted, without the fear of being killed like this generation of Iraqis will.

Wishing for a peaceful election seems like a wish made in vain. I hope it's the start of a better future for Iraq.

 

[Cathleen]

Re: Voting in Iraq

Not sure if this is necessarily a topic to be discussed, but it's on my mind.

Polls open today in Iraq for their first free elections in 50 years.

I wish the voters courage as they place their votes.

We take our rights for granted, without the fear of being killed like this generation of Iraqis will.

Wishing for a peaceful election seems like a wish made in vain. I hope it's the start of a better future for Iraq.

Den, I watched some of the coverage, there was some violence, but not nearly as much as expected. The voter turn out seems to be at least 50% and in some places as high as 70%. I am shocked, very glad but shocked.

I would like to see our country have turnouts like that ....... wonder if that will happen?

 

[Denae]

Re: Re: Voting in Iraq

Den, I watched some of the coverage, there was some violence, but not nearly as much as expected. The voter turn out seems to be at least 50% and in some places as high as 70%. I am shocked, very glad but shocked.

I would like to see our country have turnouts like that ....... wonder if that will happen?

Perhaps if we can text message our votes like on American Idol. That's what I find sad. We have incredible voting rights and yet so many people don't vote. Do we not understand what our forefathers fought for? What the generations before us were willing to lose their lives for?

I may not like any of the candidates, but I always go to the booth feeling like I'm wearing a badge of honor.

I should probably turn on the news to see coverage of the vote. I just hope that whoever wins isn't assasinated before they have an opportunity to help their country.

 

[Cathleen]

Re: Re: Re: Voting in Iraq

Perhaps if we can text message our votes like on American Idol. That's what I find sad. We have incredible voting rights and yet so many people don't vote. Do we not understand what our forefathers fought for? What the generations before us were willing to lose their lives for?

I may not like any of the candidates, but I always go to the booth feeling like I'm wearing a badge of honor.

I should probably turn on the news to see coverage of the vote. I just hope that whoever wins isn't assasinated before they have an opportunity to help their country.

It would be nice if more voted. I have missed a few local elections only. I love to vote - it is such a privilege.

From what I understand there will be another election in a year - this is to set up a system and begin a constitution. It is amazing to see the footage. It reminds me of how lucky we are - another thing I am always aware of is grocery shopping. Each time I walk into a grocery store I feel amazed at the idea that here is this store filled with SO much and there are probably five more of them within a 10 minute drive - all that at the tip of our fingers while there are so many that don't have an 'nth' of it.

We are lucky people in this country, in so many ways.

 

[Denae]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Voting in Iraq

It would be nice if more voted. I have missed a few local elections only. I love to vote - it is such a privilege.

From what I understand there will be another election in a year - this is to set up a system and begin a constitution. It is amazing to see the footage. It reminds me of how lucky we are - another thing I am always aware of is grocery shopping. Each time I walk into a grocery store I feel amazed at the idea that here is this store filled with SO much and there are probably five more of them within a 10 minute drive - all that at the tip of our fingers while there are so many that don't have an 'nth' of it.

We are lucky people in this country, in so many ways.

I agree with you. I've thought of how much we have here while I shop for groceries. We don't worry about buying a loaf of bread while we make a selection from the choices available to us. We don't have to stand in line or worry about rations. We take so much for granted, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[babydoll2u]

Doll, please feel free to ask me a question. I guess I am not being clear with my thoughts but I am willing to try more.

If we are talking about equal rights, which are given by the state, then all civil unions should be treated equally.

Marriage, in my opinion is a totally different union - kind of like the icing on the cake........ ?? not sure if that is a good analogy but it is as if any rights, given by the state, should apply to all unions.

I believe in civil unions for any couple, no matter their makeup, two hetrosexual people or two homosexual people....... no matter, all should get the same rights.

Sorry, I seem to be confusing you... I don't mean to at all.


edit: I wonder if this might help with clarity. The civil union is the foundation - it is where all rights are given - it is the cake.

The icing, if some choose it is the 'marriage'. Not everyone believes in marriage. But they are free to go to their temple/church/synagogue etc for the icing.

I'm not sure I would go that route, justice of the peace, a judge etc may be the right avenue for me should I get to that level of commitment.


* Perhaps someone has another topic, if they wish. *

Cathleen... if it helps any, I understand you perfectly. While I don't agree with everything, I think you've been quite clear

 

[babydoll2u]

Re: Re: Re: Voting in Iraq

Perhaps if we can text message our votes like on American Idol. That's what I find sad. We have incredible voting rights and yet so many people don't vote. Do we not understand what our forefathers fought for? What the generations before us were willing to lose their lives for?

I may not like any of the candidates, but I always go to the booth feeling like I'm wearing a badge of honor.

I should probably turn on the news to see coverage of the vote. I just hope that whoever wins isn't assasinated before they have an opportunity to help their country.

Den, I think alot of people don't vote because they feel like their
vote won't make a difference. I do know that this is why my grandparents stopped voting years ago. Sad

 

[Cathleen]

Cathleen... if it helps any, I understand you perfectly. While I don't agree with everything, I think you've been quite clear

I'm glad....... I certainly don't expect or want everyone to agree.

If everyone thinks the same then nobodies thinking. (from my 11th grade lit. teacher)

I like your 'hug' counter.....

edit: I can't believe I misspelled nobodies.

 

[babydoll2u]

I'm glad....... I certainly don't expect or want everyone to agree.

If everyone thinks the same then nobodys thinking. (from my 11th grade lit. teacher)

I like your 'hug' counter.....

thank you ma'am