I just had an apostrophe

[tealsphynx]

Lightning has just struck my brain...

Ok..now off of the movie quotes. Sorry guys, please bear with me, I have this paper and researching is causing all kinds of swarms in my head and D is gone for another week and I'm don't really like to discuss this kind of stuff with my family for some reason unbeknownst to me. Ok...so same-sex marriage. Please no flames I really do appreciate and respect the opinions here and I don't mean to start GB political type shit, just off venting ideas and asking for some feedback.

Californa, Britain and some other places (sorry, can't remember off the top of my head) haven't made same-sex marriage legal, but recognize Civil Unions with full rights and enjoyments of marriage. Britain even has a seperate registry for civil unions and marriage. Could it be possible for both sides of the argument Christians/Traditionalists and gay to compromise with the idea of separate marriage and Civil Union lables. It really is the same thing, but with different names. Now, also, could the US which is currently debating about a Constitutional definition of marriage drop that idea and instead give civil unions the same legal protections and rights of marriage...or does this pose a problem with our Constitutional ammendment regarding Seperate but equal? Separate but equal is considered unconstitutional. Would having 2 types of marriage registry fall under this (marriage and civil union)? What if we all just took the title civil union on our legal paperwork and called it marriage anyway? Since marriage is a religious lable, if civil union was a separate registry open to anyone deciding to legalize their union would it be less "separate but equal". I think there are even different sex couples that would rather have a civil union instead of a marriage, I know people that won't get married because of the religious background of the idea of marriage. If we all decided to have civil unions instead of marriages would divorce be such a "problem"? Is divorce a problem? I've seen couples who really were better off getting divorced. Sometimes when we marry we don't know how our partner will change as we all grow and change and we decide we do't like how they changed...or they discover that they have some serious compatability issues. Why should they stay married? Because the bible said so? Bhah. There are plenty of people who don't live the christian religion, granted "most" americans do should the minority be forced to live by the majority's lifestyle or could we make a more equal idea of "tradition"

I don't htink I'm making sense now. Thanks for letting me spew.

 

[SweetCherry]

The way I see it, if a church wants to say "We won't marry same sex couples," let 'em. But dammit, give a same sex couple the right to walk into any courthouse in the US and take their vows. Seperation of church and satate. You need a legal document from said courthouse. Fine, get said document. Same sex couple? No church will perform the union? Sure, come over here and we'll do it in the courthouse. Hetero couple who doesn't desire a religious ceremony? Heck, right here by the queer couple. The government can't dictate to the church how to run their stuff. The church shouldn't be able to dictate to the goverenment.

Then again, what do I know. I'm not a political bitch, just a queer one. And a tired one, at that. *shrugs*

 

[chris9]

I can only speak from a mainly German, little bit Dutch point of view.
In Germany we have this civil union. It has most of the same rights, though I think is still lacking some especially in regards to money matters, but I could be wrong. A main, though I believe not often or openly discussed issue as it's not of much practical relevance is that our constitution puts marriage and family under special protection. This constitutional protection is not extended to the civil union.

Marriages are mainly a state thing. We have to go to a registry office where we are wed as the law dictates. If we want we can have a religious wedding after that. The civil union is 'wed' at the same registry office, same ceremony/words/everything.

Now comes the Dutch part. My uncle married his long-term boyfriend two years ago. In the Netherlands. They did not feel that this civil union gave them the same rights, equal treatment to hetero couples. One of them got a job in the Netherlands and soon after they got married.
My personal conclusion: While it's possible to call gay marriage civil union (or whatever else you want to call it), with the same rights and everything, it's still treating couples differently depending on their gender (two different or the same). In a way I can see it as a compromise, something that a majority in parliament can vote for, but in my opinion still lacking. In my dream world love between a couple would be enough, there would be no need for such a compromise because (mostly) conservative people would see that they don't lose a thing by allowing marriages of any odd couple.

 

[Aeroil]

In the US, they got intelligent design taught in science classes, seperation of church and state does not exist there.

The debate in the US is not based on logic, its really not about gay marriage.
John Stewart put it magnificiently, "It a debate on whether or not you think gay people are the natural progression of the human condition, or just a random fetish."

Dammit I love John Stewart.

 

[the captians wench]

In the US, they got intelligent design taught in science classes, seperation of church and state does not exist there.

The debate in the US is not based on logic, its really not about gay marriage.
John Stewart put it magnificiently, "It a debate on whether or not you think gay people are the natural progression of the human condition, or just a random fetish."

Dammit I love John Stewart.

intelligent design is taught in some science classes because it is considered a theory, just as "the big bang" and it is presented in that fashion, as a scientific theory. At least that was the way in my class. There was just as much debate over if it seemed possible as the bang. Personally I don't see why it's more logical to think that two random molicules just collided one day out of nothingness and started a process that tooks millions of years to get where it is today, than it is to think that there is some higher power that decided to create life. Both theories take a lot of faith, imo.

But on topic. I remember when I went to a class about my benifits package a section in the paper work on....oh I can't remember how they phrazed it...but basicly some one living with you who is not a relative and shares so much of the responcibility of the house hold and etc....If said person lived with you for a certian amount of time (I think like 7 years) and you provided a certian amount of the house hold income that person could receive medical benifits under your plan. I thought it was very interesting because it didn't really mention anything about sex or the relationship of the person other than it wasn't a birth family member. By all logic the plan would cover some one significant or simply a room mate that you've had forever lol. If one can now recieve these benifits with out leagally being married it only makes since that couples who for various reasons don't want to get married, won't have to. Now I understand that medical coverage is only a very small part of what, I thought, isn't protected out side of marriage, but it made me think about what could be next on that list to become covered under the lived together for a long time blanket.

 

[Vixandra]

I honestly believe that the government should have nothing to do with marriages. Its an issue for the churches, not for elected officials.

Couples that are legally joined should have a cival union. Man/man, woman/woman, man/woman, they should be treated the same. Long as you can pay to register the union and have an official that's authorized to preform them 'activate' your cival union, then you should be good to go.

To deny a woman the right to 'marry' another woman, where a man would have that right, is sexual discrimination. Its banning someone from benefits they could receive were they the opposite gender.

Forgive me if that reads oddly, very tired.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

The main argument for allowing same-sex marriages, and the one that has the best chance of success in the US, is the argument of "equal protection under the law".

Since homosexual practices in private between consenting adults are de-criminalized (thank you Lawrence v Texas) there is little standing legally in the way of recognizing homosexual couples equal standing to hetero couples. The equal protection argument goes something like this:

"If it is legal for a man to do X, then it is unconstitutional discrimination to make it illegal for a woman to do the same thing if she desires to do it, and the opposite holds true. Now, if a man wants to marry a woman, that's legal, and if a woman wants to marry a man, that's legal. Therefore, if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman wants to marry a woman, under equal protection they must be allowed to do so."

That is, of course, an EXTREMELY simplified version of the argument, but that's the basic premise in a nutshell.

Equal protection cases have already been argued and won regarding adoption rights for gay couples, and there are other legal options in place that can be argued set the precedent and equivalent right of a spouse (such as medical power of attorney to give your gay partner the right to make medical decision on your behalf).

Me personally? My thought is this... Why in the world should straight folk have all the fun and joy of divorce court? I'm surprised that the American Bar Association and Trial Lawyers Association have not jumped all over THAT bandwagon...

 

[tealsphynx]

The main argument for allowing same-sex marriages, and the one that has the best chance of success in the US, is the argument of "equal protection under the law".

Since homosexual practices in private between consenting adults are de-criminalized (thank you Lawrence v Texas) there is little standing legally in the way of recognizing homosexual couples equal standing to hetero couples. The equal protection argument goes something like this:

"If it is legal for a man to do X, then it is unconstitutional discrimination to make it illegal for a woman to do the same thing if she desires to do it, and the opposite holds true. Now, if a man wants to marry a woman, that's legal, and if a woman wants to marry a man, that's legal. Therefore, if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman wants to marry a woman, under equal protection they must be allowed to do so."

That is, of course, an EXTREMELY simplified version of the argument, but that's the basic premise in a nutshell.

Equal protection cases have already been argued and won regarding adoption rights for gay couples, and there are other legal options in place that can be argued set the precedent and equivalent right of a spouse (such as medical power of attorney to give your gay partner the right to make medical decision on your behalf).

Me personally? My thought is this... Why in the world should straight folk have all the fun and joy of divorce court? I'm surprised that the American Bar Association and Trial Lawyers Association have not jumped all over THAT bandwagon...

Thanks for the simplification of Lawrence v. Texas. I've been trying to read the case report and it's worse than trying to read my philosophy book. There is a reason I'm not a law major. I've decide for my safety and the comfort of the students in the class to argue that there is a compromise in the situation. I do like Vixandra's idea that marriage, being a Church term shoud have no place in government, that say, my marriage is actually a "civil Union" because we didn't have it in a church and our "minister" performed a very NON-faith based ceremony. I think civil unions should be an option for non-religious people and to include same-sex marriages since many churches won't marry them...though there's one that has had TV comercials that says something to hte tune of "god wouldn't turn them away, so why should the church. the church of ...... accepts people of all lifestyles because it would be what god wanted" or something like that. Granted it's wierd since by the bible god would turn away homosexuals...it's "an abomination". <shrug> So many unorganized thoughts swirling in my head. I really appreciate hearing everyone who's replied opinions. It helps me rethink and organize my argument.

 

[Aeroil]

intelligent design is taught in some science classes because it is considered a theory, just as "the big bang" and it is presented in that fashion, as a scientific theory. At least that was the way in my class. There was just as much debate over if it seemed possible as the bang. Personally I don't see why it's more logical to think that two random molicules just collided one day out of nothingness and started a process that tooks millions of years to get where it is today, than it is to think that there is some higher power that decided to create life. Both theories take a lot of faith, imo.

But on topic. I remember when I went to a class about my benifits package a section in the paper work on....oh I can't remember how they phrazed it...but basicly some one living with you who is not a relative and shares so much of the responcibility of the house hold and etc....If said person lived with you for a certian amount of time (I think like 7 years) and you provided a certian amount of the house hold income that person could receive medical benifits under your plan. I thought it was very interesting because it didn't really mention anything about sex or the relationship of the person other than it wasn't a birth family member. By all logic the plan would cover some one significant or simply a room mate that you've had forever lol. If one can now recieve these benifits with out leagally being married it only makes since that couples who for various reasons don't want to get married, won't have to. Now I understand that medical coverage is only a very small part of what, I thought, isn't protected out side of marriage, but it made me think about what could be next on that list to become covered under the lived together for a long time blanket.

Far from me to knock the validity or possibility of intelligent design, or to advocate the flawlessness of science... But the big bang is science, intelligent design is philosophy. You can't say either is right or wrong, you can't support that, but the name of the class *is* science class. If the board of education thought it was important that children study philosophy, they'd make a philosophy class. One can imagine what a diasaster that would be...
Besides, Big Bang is massively more complex than you make it sound, have you studied cosmology? There are people who dedicate their lives to studying this stuff.

ANYWAY

I like Geoff's statement. +2

 

[Xelebes]

Big bang is still a theory and has just the same amount of validity as Intelligent Design, only for the reason that we cannot see that far back into time.

The two theories can be looked at scientifically.

With Big Bang, all you need to do is find evidence of everything being manipulated by thermic, plasmic and nuclear energy exchanges. Torrents in the Mandelbrot.

Intelligent Design looks at the current structures everything is in and observing the elegance of the structures. Buddha in the Mandelbrot.

These two approaches need to be done without a religious dogma propagating it and filling in the cracks whenever it goes a-miss.

 

[Aeroil]

Big bang is still a theory and has just the same amount of validity as Intelligent Design, only for the reason that we cannot see that far back into time.

The two theories can be looked at scientifically.

With Big Bang, all you need to do is find evidence of everything being manipulated by thermic, plasmic and nuclear energy exchanges. Torrents in the Mandelbrot.

Intelligent Design looks at the current structures everything is in and observing the elegance of the structures. Buddha in the Mandelbrot.

These two approaches need to be done without a religious dogma propagating it and filling in the cracks whenever it goes a-miss.

¬_¬...

I don't buy the big bang myself, we're jumping too many conclusions on it IMO.

You can argue anything by saying that 'this couldn't be a coincidence', and it's a terrible debate style, it's pretending to understand happenstance, which is impossible.

 

[Retrieval]

I just had an apostrophe

ROTFLMAO!

 

[tealsphynx]

ROTFLMAO!

Ah, finally!! Somebody who's seen Hook ! I really love that movie, and since it's kind of a rediculous going to be headed into some touchy territory I thought a bit of movie humor would lighten it up a bit. I'm too tired to think.

 

[Vixandra]

As many churches and temples, whatever, won't allow a homosexual wedding to take place there, there are many that do.

The person who performed the ceremony for my husband and I has also done lesbian hand fastings (yes, I know, you try explaining it to them) and gay marriages. And there are many other tolerant leaders of "insert faith" out there.

Many intolerant ones, but you get road apples instead of good apples sometimes, it happens.

 

[tealsphynx]

Isn't hand fasting kindof like a "pre-marriage" ? It's like a one year "lets try it out" thing if I remember from what my sister told me. Though my memory is more than schetchy these days I could be wrong.

Ok...NOW I've got another idea (I know I know, not another one) I know there's some people that I'd like to hear from about this, but I htink a bunches of litsters are avoiding my threads because, well, they're jumpy, unorganized and touchy..buuut I've got somehitng I want to see what others think:
COULD there be a compromise on this idea? I understand that some people feel kinda hurt by the idea that they're traditions could be ruled by court/state as "wrong" if same sex marriage were legal...I mighta mentioned this before...but what about a seperation between Marriage and Civil Union. Offer marriage to only hetro, but offer CU to both hetro and same sex couples. Am I nuts or could people work on a compromise like this? As it stands we're threatening to tell one side that they don't matter no matter what the out come (although it looks to be favoring the hetro definition...I jsut found out about the Defense of marriage act passed in 1996 by Clinton, thanks to my districts Republican Representative). Both sides are going to have to give up something for this to make any headway...maybe samesex couples could give up the "legal" term marriage and adopt the idea of an equally protective "civil union"...this wouln't stop them from calling it a marriage anyway, but then the cristians can keep their "sactity of marriage" thing. But in tern the peole who are aganstsame sex marriage would have to recognize that these civil unions are the same thing just with a different name just not sanctioned by the church. I think some of these "tollerant" churches would still do civil union ceremonies and there are plenty of justice of the peaces and others who are qualified to sign the documentation. is this a good idea?

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Thanks for the simplification of Lawrence v. Texas.

Unfortunately, my simplification was not a summary of Lawrence v. Texas. The primary thrust of Lawrence v Texas was that the "privacy" (due process) rights of the gay couple were violated, and that the provisions of the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalized sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not the same behavior by hetero couples, was unconstitutional.

Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, but disagreed with the reasoning used by Kennedy in the majority ruling. O'Connor agreed with the ruling on the basis of "equal protection". The Texas law targeted a group of people (homosexuals), and not an act (sodomy). Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion has been influential in state court cases tried since Lawrence was handed down.

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (Mass) - case that ruled that homosexual marriages must be allowed under the Massachuessetts Constitution.
State v. Limon (Kansas) concerns age of consent. A Kansas law reduced the penalty for consentual sex between teenagers under 18 years of age, if they are within 4 years of age of one another. But the law specifically excluded homosexuals from the reduced penalties. The Kansas Supreme Court unanimously reversed the law in light of the decision in Lawrence.

The full impact of Lawrence has yet to be felt. It is a landmark decsion that will probably take decades to shake out throughout the judicial system.

 

[Aeroil]

Isn't hand fasting kindof like a "pre-marriage" ? It's like a one year "lets try it out" thing if I remember from what my sister told me. Though my memory is more than schetchy these days I could be wrong.

Ok...NOW I've got another idea (I know I know, not another one) I know there's some people that I'd like to hear from about this, but I htink a bunches of litsters are avoiding my threads because, well, they're jumpy, unorganized and touchy..buuut I've got somehitng I want to see what others think:
COULD there be a compromise on this idea? I understand that some people feel kinda hurt by the idea that they're traditions could be ruled by court/state as "wrong" if same sex marriage were legal...I mighta mentioned this before...but what about a seperation between Marriage and Civil Union. Offer marriage to only hetro, but offer CU to both hetro and same sex couples. Am I nuts or could people work on a compromise like this? As it stands we're threatening to tell one side that they don't matter no matter what the out come (although it looks to be favoring the hetro definition...I jsut found out about the Defense of marriage act passed in 1996 by Clinton, thanks to my districts Republican Representative). Both sides are going to have to give up something for this to make any headway...maybe samesex couples could give up the "legal" term marriage and adopt the idea of an equally protective "civil union"...this wouln't stop them from calling it a marriage anyway, but then the cristians can keep their "sactity of marriage" thing. But in tern the peole who are aganstsame sex marriage would have to recognize that these civil unions are the same thing just with a different name just not sanctioned by the church. I think some of these "tollerant" churches would still do civil union ceremonies and there are plenty of justice of the peaces and others who are qualified to sign the documentation. is this a good idea?

Optimistic, but you're acting like the government wants a solution to this whole problem.

If they wanted to solve things, they would have, they would have worked out a plan to make everyone happy, or as many people happy, and they would have done it. But they don't want to make us happy as they could have, and as long as they're the majority, they're allowed to do that.

This is ARM and CORE here, it's not a debate, it's a battle of wills. They think we just have a wierd fetish and don't want to let us in their country club, we don't want to be oppressed, that's pretty much the whole situation.

 

[tealsphynx]

Optimistic, but you're acting like the government wants a solution to this whole problem.

If they wanted to solve things, they would have, they would have worked out a plan to make everyone happy, or as many people happy, and they would have done it. But they don't want to make us happy as they could have, and as long as they're the majority, they're allowed to do that.

This is ARM and CORE here, it's not a debate, it's a battle of wills. They think we just have a wierd fetish and don't want to let us in their country club, we don't want to be oppressed, that's pretty much the whole situation.

I do agree with the "not wanting it to be solved" thing. Sometimes it seems politicians just have to have a hot issue to "show" their supporters that they "believe" in something. It's funny I really think some of them honestly wanted to do something good, and then got caught in the b/s. the people want it solved, well, some people do, decision makers have other ideas.