Harm in Homosexuality?

quote:

---

Gay people have the right to marry anyone they want - of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals have the right to marry anyone they want - of the opposite sex.

---

Black people had the same right to marry anyone they want - of the same race, just as white people had the right to marry anyone they want - of the same race.I know this comparison is very tired by now, but it seems a rather important line to draw. So as not to overload you with questions at once, just the one until you respond - would you say that proponents of interracial marriage weren't fighting for equal rights, but additional rights?

Well I wasn't really arguing for a position against gay marriage.What I was pointing out is what you have just pointed out, there are two concepts of marriage: joining two people in love, and joining two people together for purpose of legal concerns (children and property).The latter one is hoped to include the love element, but that is not the overriding reason for its existence.The latter is the traditional basis for the definition of marriage, specifically with regard to the cultures that formed US cultural and legal traditions.While people like Rrhain, and myself included, will argue that marriage can also include the first concept, I recognize that people are not "wrong" in saying the second concept is the traditional basis for marriage. We are asking for a change. Perhaps you can explain this to me then, since Rrhain refuses to answer. What is the reason that marriages and civil unions cannot be made synonymous under law? All it would take is a piece of legislation (perhaps inside the one creating CUs) saying that they are synonymous under law and legislation effecting one effects the other equally.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Up to now I thought I understood and agreed with your position Holmes. Suddenly it has gotten a bit more complex than I think is needed.I thought you were saying:Remove all references to marriage in the secular legal realm. Change all such usages to "civil union". Allow for same sex civil unions. Let the churchs perform, define and authorize "marriages" utterly separately from any reference to legal matters.Then you have handled the traditional hang ups on the word, allow churchs complete freedom to do as they please with no reason to be afraid of being forced into anything they don't agree with.You put everyone on the same legal grounds with no, I would think, constitutional issues.Why risk there being any chance of the two things (marriage and union) being able to diverge in anyway. (There will be pressure to have that happen I'm sure.)

I don't agree.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Actually you do understand my position on how best to approach the whole thing legally. The problem is there are many different viewpoints on how to solve the issue. Okay so yes, that is what I think is the best solution for the problem. It has been put forward by others as well such as Berberry.HOWEVER... there are some other options. I do not think they are the best, but they are possible compromises. The point to remember is that a compromise is by nature not going to be the best. Yet compromise is often necessary in a democracy...1) Continue using marriage and change defs so that they include other (including newer) concepts of marriage.2) Continue using marriage and create a new category for unions that do not fit within the original definition. We can call them civil unions or registered partnerships. They can be made synonymous under law by creating a legal statement that beyond name and prereq for using the name, they are considered equal and that all legislation/regulation referring to one will refer to the other.If I wanted my rights asap, and one of those compromises stood between me getting them or not, I would take them. Well here's the deal... right now there is nothing. And despite all the name calling there really are sincere people that have a semantic hangup about marriage, yet would be fine with gays in equal entities called unions. I think it is silly. I am of the position that you outlined. But in this state of affairs a compromise may accomplish what is necessary faster and with less social instability than what I prefer.It is true that there is the possibility that CUs are created in such a way as to leave a room for them being treated separately. Yet that is only a possibility while it is being drafted.If you see that such a CU proposition is what is reaching the floor for a vote then it is no different than today where other pieces of bad legislation are coming to the floor. I don't think gays should accept it. They should fight it, and vote against it. If it passes then the fight is not over, as there was no compromise.Just because it is called a CU does not mean that is the type of CU I am talking about.I am certainly never going to suggest gays compromise on equality of rights, but use of a name or form, if that is all we are down to, is not inequality.So if one of the compromises above were put before the legislature, and nothing less, then I would think gays should feel good enough and accept it. If it passes, I have yet to see anyone give a credible reason it would not work... and it is infinitely better than the situation now.Indeed if they got the 2nd compromise passed, and the language is clear CUs are synonymous with marriages, and then someone tries to create new laws to split them again, the motion would be apparent, a call to action, and if not voted down, then appealed later.I think it is an illusion for people to think that can happen for CUs, but not happen if gays are just allowed to marry. That latter is just as tenuous as having CUs, since laws may be changed (even the Constitution can) if there is enough support for it.It seems to me a lot of gay activists are expecting gay marriage to finally settle social stigmas against gays and end the ability of people that don't want gays to be married from doing anything about it. History has shown this is not so.I hope this explains my position better. I don't mean to be selling these compromises, or saying people that don't want gays to be married are "right". I am only trying to point out where they are factually correct in some instances, might actually be sincere in their position, and where a compromise (if necessary) can be the best option.Maybe I play too good a Gods' advocate?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well i'm not american and I don't know how your legal system works really, but I imagine the fear is that if it ends up in the situation where civil unions are simply made synonymous with traditional marriage then this makes it a lot easier to attack it than if it is fully integrated with marriage. I'm sure it could be attacked even if it was fully integrated, but it would involve completely seperating the two again so that the rights of homosexual unions could be altered without affecting heterosexual ones. If they are only linked by defining them as synonymous, then all that has to be done is to remove that link. Again, i don't know much about law in america so I may be completely wrong.As for removing social stigma, you're right that certainly won't happen overnight. At least it lets homosexuals start to appear more socially normal. Years down the line a gay marriage might be as inoffensive as votes for women, which as far as I know has little opposition?And remember when women fought for the right to vote they didn't settle for having the same rights but let it be called a "democratic deciscion" or some other such name. I doubt gay people will settle for something like that either. Who knows though.

holmes,I can't speak for Rrhain, and I'm sure he can give you a much more detailed answer with historical references, etc. I'm just not that smart. Having two separate things is just dangerous and a recipe for disaster.
* Increases complexity of the law
* Allows for their future separation
* Allows for them to be 'made synonymous' only partly.
* Allows for future legislation that targets some aspect of marriage, but improperly considers civil unionsIn my engineering experience, having 'parallel items,' and trying to remember to consider them both leads to real problems. I see the legal system as one huge, complex, hack-filled computer program. Loop-holes are security bugs; it is this kind of computer programming that leads to these kinds of bugs; I see it as the same for law-making. Ideally, it would work, but in practice, it just doesn't. In a large system, adding complexity is simply adding more things for someone to fail to know. Individually, it may seem ok, but when considered in such a large, opaque system, it's dangerous.In other words, there's got to be a better solution. I'd only accept this kind of solution as a last resort. The best way to do it is to do it right the first time; not to accept some partway solution for now, and try to fix later. It doesn't happen like that. Not in software, and not in the law.So, these are my basic assertions, with only my experience in computer programming offered as motivation to understand my position. Although, the same type of thing does apply to scientific theory-building.Let's just drop the name 'marriage.' I think that would go a long way. Make one set of laws with 'unions.' Those laws are for heterosexuals or homosexuals. These laws include provisions for having children, whether your own or adopted. These also apply to heterosexuals or homosexuals. Homosexuals can have children too.Drop the name 'marriage,' and remove the seeming dependency on the religious notion. Then use the existing law for all people. The only reason people wouldn't want to do that is their desire to tie law to religion.Too bad our legal system isn't like CBA's in sports, where there's a contract lifetime for each law, and they need to be renegotiated every XX years in order to keep them up-to-date. Seems like our legal system is a matter of the 'haves' (those protected under the law already) vs. the 'have-nots', and the have-nots are ALWAYS outnumbered. I think many people would sing a different tune if their right to establish a legal union was dependent on resolving this problem.Ben

I was going to close this one down but since the last posts have gotten interesting and there has been no personal bashing im gonna give it a break. If the personal bashing starts or the posts have nothing to contribute I'll close itThis message has been edited by AdminJazzlover, 11-26-2004 12:04 PM

---

Yo soy BoriCua Pa Que tu lo Sepas

There does seem to be a good discussion of homosexual marriage vs. conventional marriage happening. This is more or less off-topic, and is also getting buried in 300+ message-land.I suggest the cream of the recent stuff get pulled out of here and get plugged into a (gasp) new topic, title along the lines of "Homosexual Marriage vs. Conventional Marriage". Or at least supply links to messages in this topic.Closing this one down.Adminnemooseus