|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Omnivorous writes: If you mean all future couples, straight and gay, would involve the state only in obtaining licenses for legally identical civil unions,... I personally would be fine with that approach, but I understand there would be objections. I was proposing two different types, one called a "union" (or any agreed upon label) and the other called a "marriage." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... I was proposing two different types, one called a "union" (or any agreed upon label) and the other called a "marriage." Separate but equal? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Separate but equal? Perhaps you don't remember when this argument was supposedly all about the economic benefits of marriage, which should be well enough dealt with by a legal union that aimed to guarantee such benefits. Now we're told no, it's all about dignity, being treated like heterosexuals. It never was about just benefits. Or for that matter even about dignity. It's always been about destroying the institution of marriage and you can find gay activists saying that in so many words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: It's always been about destroying the institution of marriage. Then it's been an abject failure; men and women who wish to marry seem largely oblivious to this dire threat.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It is about the secular, legal benefits of marriage because that is all that the law can deal with. I guess that you misunderstood RAZD's comment which is a reference to racial segregation - and we know how "equal" that was. Just as we know that at least some of the opponents of gay marriage will use the difference to deny gays the benefits if they are given a separate status from marriage.
quote: No, it's being pointed out that your preferred approach is fraught with difficulties, which the Supreme Court has dealt with at a stroke. New legislation would be needed, including many adjustments to existing legislation, with the opposition taking every opportunity to delay it or wreck it or to deny the benefits you say that you are prepared to accept. If your only complaint is that you don't like gay unions being called marriages then you don't really have much of an objection. Your personal likes and dislikes are simply not that important, compared to the very real benefits. They should not even be that important to you, never mind anyone else.
quote: It would be an incredibly stupid way of destroying marriage. There are even ways in which it strengthens marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
Faith writes: It's always been about destroying the institution of marriage... Kim Davis and I, as thrice-divorced heterosexuals, did our best to destroy marriage, but failed miserably--though she's still trying, while I've hung up my spurs. I think marriage will survive us both. I could get another license from Ms. Davis without quarrel, even though the Kentucky license application requires me to state how many marriages I've abandoned. Clearly, my second and third marriages, like her second through fourth, contradict God's one-man/one-woman, indissoluble union doctrine. There is nothing like having skin in the game to liberalize one's position on divorce and adultery. Instead of being stoned as an adulterer, I, too, could hitch up my hypocrisy and hate to a Christian media-martyr wagon. Is this a great country or what?
...and you can find gay activists saying that... But apparently you cannot.
...in so many words. Which you will redefine."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8556 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
It's always been about destroying the institution of marriage and you can find gay activists saying that in so many words. So you have quotes on this conspiracy to destroy marriage by gay activists. Please do share. Caution. If your definition of "destroy" is merely enlarging the pool of eligible unions under the umbrella of marriage then you will be rejected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... It's always been about destroying the institution of marriage ... Curiously, I don't see any drop off in people getting married ... can you show any sudden drop off since this Supreme Court decision?
... and you can find gay activists saying that in so many words. Please do so. (not holding my breath).
Perhaps you don't remember when this argument was supposedly all about the economic benefits of marriage ... Indeed, AND how it was morally offensive to deny those benefits to a class of people, AND how that could only be guaranteed by including gay marriage in the human family of married people ... because anything less would be like the failed "Separate but equal" treatment of blacks at the beginning of the '60's civil rights movements. Because it never was equal. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's always been about destroying the institution of marriage ...
Curiously, I don't see any drop off in people getting married ... can you show any sudden drop off since this Supreme Court decision? Curiously you are nuts and a half to think anybody meant it would happen right away. Give it a generation.
... and you can find gay activists saying that in so many words.
Please do so. (not holding my breath). HERE'S a Google page on the subject. Perhaps you don't remember when this argument was supposedly all about the economic benefits of marriage ...
Indeed, AND how it was morally offensive to deny those benefits to a class of people, AND how that could only be guaranteed by including gay marriage in the human family of married people ... because anything less would be like the failed "Separate but equal" treatment of blacks at the beginning of the '60's civil rights movements. Because it never was equal. Blacks find the comparison offensive and so do I. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
Curiously you are nuts and a half to think anybody meant it would happen right away. Give it a generation.
I predict that it will start to happen just after the rapture.
HERE'S a Google page on the subject.
That's a page of gloom and doom predictions by the opponents of gay marriage. When did the Christian message change from "We bring you tidings of great joy" to doom and gloom?Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Of course there is no sensible reason to think that it will happen at all. And it seems that one lesbian activist wants to change the legalities further to reflect polyamorous relationships. As do some straights. Hardly a sign that the struggle for gay marriage is about destroying it. The views of one person I've never heard of before just aren't that significant.
quote: Only the bigots are offended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
That's the ultimate cop-out. Hint: In a generation, you won't be here to be proven wrong. Give it a generation. Allow me to prophesy: In a generation there will be a Bigfoot in the White House. A gay Bigfoot. A fundamentalist Christian gay Bigfoot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Curiously you are nuts and a half to think anybody meant it would happen right away. Give it a generation. Or wait for the second coming? It seems Christians are great at predicting things that never come to pass ... curiously I will wait for some evidence while enjoying the spectacularly gay drama of Christians weeping and moaning rending their clothes and dumping ashes on their heads.
HERE'S a Google page on the subject. That all seems to involve one single individual who says that allowing two gays to marry is not going far enough. In articles written for gullible bigoted Christians ... I mean Glenn Beck ... really??? One person does not make a movement. Got anything else?
Blacks find the comparison offensive ... Again: documentation? source? Curiously I have seen blacks from the civil rights movement agree that this is discrimination against a class of people, that they are not being treated equally. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Blacks find the comparison offensive and so do I. Congressman John Lewis is the last surviving member of the Big Six. He writes:
I fought too long and too hard to end discrimination based on race and color, to not stand up against discrimination against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. But yeah, he only spoke alongside King at the March on Washington, what would he know about the '60's civil rights movement? You should write to him on behalf of "blacks" telling him how offensive they find him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Blacks find the comparison offensive and so do I. Some blacks do find the comparison offensive, while others do not. Largely the ones that find the comparison are just as unsympathetic with gays desire for marriage equality as any bigot. As funky as it seems, blacks and Latinos are more likely to be fundamentalists and gay haters as white people; in this country at least, but probably world wide. But there is no mistaking the role of Ms. Davis here. Kim Davis is 'George Wallace', standing in the doorway and using her power as a government official to deny rights to a despised minority. [1] The parallel is pretty close to inescapable for anyone without their head up their butt. If you are against marriage equality and find the parallel uncomfortable or ugly or are 'offended', too effing bad. The exact purpose of the parallel is to make you feel that way and worse. In some people it might even produce guilt. It is also the case that people who supported Wallace's position were every bit as sure that they were on the right side of history as are those against gay marriage now. We need not consider the feelings of the angry/offended in determining whether the accusation of hatred is apt. And seriously, the question was never about the economic benefits alone. It was also about social benefits like testifying about your partners life/death decisions without the deceased family interfering just as my wife can do for me, and being named on the death certificate (which is what the case that came to the Supreme Court was actually about) and having a say in raising your children after a divorce. Those benefits are not just about money, they are about life and they are tied up in thousands of little local laws all across the 50 states. Well all of that is now cleaned up in a single stroke. [1] Not entirely my own wording. See article by Raushenbush here: No, Kim Davis Is Not Martin Luther King, Jr. | HuffPost Religion. Edited by NoNukes, : Provide needed attribution Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024