Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 12:59 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 306 (376578)
01-12-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by AZPaul3
01-12-2007 6:17 PM


Civil Unions are real and available, at least in Vermont.

Civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage aren't real, not even in Vermont. The Federal government has no recognition of such unions, and thus, more than 1000 rights avaliable to married couples are unavailable to Vermont's civil-unioned pairs.

Is this appropriate in the case of Gay Rights?

Sure. Why wouldn't it be?

At any rate it seems a little ridiculous to me to fault gay people for refusing to settle for a solution that, at this point, is completely theoretical. (Can you imagine the "lack of grace"? I mean, really - what's next? Starving people complaining even after we've imagined all this food for them to eat?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 6:17 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 306 (376581)
01-12-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Fosdick
01-12-2007 6:17 PM


Re: Civil union IS the soilution
And I also take notice that heterosexual people MAY NOT marry members of the same sex. You don't hear THEM bitching about it.

Uh, actually, you may have noticed that a large number of us heterosexuals are bitching about it, right in front of you.

Reading problems? What, exactly, did you think we were doing for the past 300 posts? Or did you think everybody who disagreed with you was gay?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Fosdick, posted 01-12-2007 6:17 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 288 of 306 (376584)
01-12-2007 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by ringo
01-12-2007 6:24 PM


Re: Civil union IS the soilution
Ringo writes:

On the contrary, almost everybody who is bitching about it on this thread is heterosexual. I DO want the right to marry the person of my choice, without anybody looking under his/her skirt to check his/her qualifications.


Why wouldn't a civil union for same sexes work? If you wanted to say you are "married," fine. But why does the law need to say it, especially if it were to provide for equivalent civil-union rights?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by ringo, posted 01-12-2007 6:24 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by ringo, posted 01-12-2007 6:55 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 290 by crashfrog, posted 01-12-2007 6:57 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 291 by Modulous, posted 01-12-2007 6:58 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16626
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 289 of 306 (376586)
01-12-2007 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Fosdick
01-12-2007 6:49 PM


Re: Civil union IS the soilution
Hoot Mon writes:

But why does the law need to say it...?

This has been repeated over and over and over and over....

The law needs to treat people as equals.

If the law can prescribe a different "relationship" between same-sex couples, then it can prescribe a different "relationship" between mixed-race couples or different-religion couples or different-age couples, or....

Equality is just that - equality. Everybody treated equally. If you get to choose who you marry, so does everybody else.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Fosdick, posted 01-12-2007 6:49 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 306 (376588)
01-12-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Fosdick
01-12-2007 6:49 PM


Re: Civil union IS the soilution
Why wouldn't a civil union for same sexes work?

Asked and answered. Civil unions that provide all the same rights of marriage don't exist under US law.

What you're asking is - why can't we preserve just this one little piece of discrimination?

Because it's discrimination. That's why.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Fosdick, posted 01-12-2007 6:49 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 291 of 306 (376590)
01-12-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Fosdick
01-12-2007 6:49 PM


when is a marriage not a marriage?
But why does the law need to say it, especially if it were to provide for equivalent civil-union rights?

I see this being put forward a lot and I am still confused by it. The equivalent question goes unanswered: If the two states of affair (marriage/civil-union) are legally equivalent, why should the law give them two different names?

I hear hopeless linguistic pleas to tradition and stuff, but given the fact that language usage changes that kind of argument seems hopeless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Fosdick, posted 01-12-2007 6:49 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4097
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 292 of 306 (376594)
01-12-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Dan Carroll
01-12-2007 6:23 PM


Other than the perceived "stigma" of "separate but equal" from US racial history, are there other objections to Civil Union as a solution?

No. Civil unions are an excellent solution, if you are willing to ignore piddling little perceived stigmas like "segregation" and "institutionalized bigotry".

Other than that, they're great. Hooray for that comfy seat in the back of the bus.

I understand this is an emotional issue. I see no one separating Gays at the water fountain, the back of the bus or in separate schools. Devoid of the emotional hyperbole Civil Union seems an appropriate solution. It seems to work well throughout most of Europe and other nations around the globe.

Without the stigma of US racial history Civil Union may have been welcome to the US Gay community at least as a step in the right direction. With our history, and the hyperbole within both the Gay and religious communities, Civil Union appears to not be an option.

Do to the power grip certain religions have on the psyche of this nation, it also appears that Civil Marriage is not going to be an option for Gays either, let alone religiously sanctioned union.

Is this a matter of semantics? If "marriage" is defined as a "union between a man and a woman" and "civil union" as a "union between members of the same sex" is there really an issue? Assuming that all applicable "rights" such as confidence, inheritance, etc. are legally enforced as in Vermont, does an issue still exist?

Edited by AZPaul3, : Boo-boo correction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-12-2007 6:23 PM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by crashfrog, posted 01-12-2007 7:30 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 298 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-12-2007 8:16 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 306 (376595)
01-12-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by AZPaul3
01-12-2007 7:15 PM


Assuming that all applicable "rights" such as confidence, inheritance, etc. are legally enforced as in Vermont, does an issue still exist?

Since they aren't enforced, not even in Vermont, what does that do to your argument?

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 7:15 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 7:41 PM crashfrog has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4097
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 294 of 306 (376596)
01-12-2007 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by crashfrog
01-12-2007 7:30 PM


Assuming that all applicable "rights" such as confidence, inheritance, etc. are legally enforced as in Vermont, does an issue still exist?

Since they aren't enforced, not even in Vermont, what does that do to your argument?

First, Frog, I have no argument. Just inquiring.

B: If such rights are not enforced then Civil Union is not an appropriate institution...yet. Having Civil Union recognized with equal force in court would be where the battle is.

My research into Vermont Civil Union and the reading of their statute does extend the same rights as marriage to Civil Union. If Vermont courts are not enforcing the statute then there is an issue for the ACLU. Are you sure of this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by crashfrog, posted 01-12-2007 7:30 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by crashfrog, posted 01-12-2007 7:44 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded
 Message 297 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 8:07 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 306 (376597)
01-12-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by AZPaul3
01-12-2007 7:41 PM


My research into Vermont Civil Union and the reading of their statute does extend the same rights as marriage to Civil Union.

Since the state of Vermont is not the sole entity responsible for extending the rights of marriage to anybody, Vermont's civil union statutes can't extend the same rights as marriage to those in civil unions. There's over a thousand federal rights associated with marriage that Vermont doesn't have the authority to extend, and are denied to civil union partners because civil unions aren't recognized by the federal government.

So, civil unions offered by the states can't be the solution, because the states don't have the authority to make civil unions equivalent to marriage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 7:41 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 306 (376598)
01-12-2007 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Fosdick
01-12-2007 6:28 PM


Re: Civil union IS the soilution
[stealing jokes is still lame] first to ask me to repeat myself

So now you're just living in a whacked out fantasy world.

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself. I pointed that you were repeating yourself, in a manner I would describe as mindless. You keep living up to the hype.

Of course, you know this; you're changing the subject so that a couple hours from now, you can just repeat, "Civil unions are the soilution! A-hyuk!"

Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Fosdick, posted 01-12-2007 6:28 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4097
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 297 of 306 (376599)
01-12-2007 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by AZPaul3
01-12-2007 7:41 PM


Yeah, I'm replying to myself here. These posts are coming so fast I can't type fast enough. The federal issue didn't dawn on me till I went back and saw one of Frog's posts. Without federal legislation enforcing recognition of Civil Unions performed in Texas having legal force in Utah there is indeed an issue.

As for the semantics of the situation, I fail to see where a separate word with a separate definition for a separate union is such a problem. It's almost like saying "citizen" and "resident alien" should have no distinction. There is a difference between same-sex and different-sex unions that, to be accurately described, require separate words. But, I see the emotional rejection of having a separation in semantics. It doesn't matter to me, but then I don't have to live it.

Interesting discussion, however.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 7:41 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Fosdick, posted 01-12-2007 8:34 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 306 (376601)
01-12-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by AZPaul3
01-12-2007 7:15 PM


I see no one separating Gays at the water fountain, the back of the bus or in separate schools.

Are they being denied those specific rights? No. They are, however, being denied marriage, which is a fundamental right guaranteed to all Americans. This is the moral and legal equivalent of separating them at water fountains, buses, and schools.

This is why the same amendment that struck down school segregation also later struck down bans on interracial marriage. They're the same issue; they're both segregation.

Without the stigma of US racial history Civil Union may have been welcome to the US Gay community at least as a step in the right direction.

Without prejudice, we wouldn't have to dither about steps in the right direction. We'd just go ahead and treat homosexuals as equals.

Making concessions to bigotry by putting something less than equality into place, instead of just enacting equal treatment, is not a good thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 7:15 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 299 of 306 (376603)
01-12-2007 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by AZPaul3
01-12-2007 8:07 PM


AZPaul3 wrote:

Interesting discussion, however.


It certainly is. It's a bit like the abortion-rights debate, in that those who oppose abortions want their opinions to apply to everyone. Abortion rights DO NOT mean that a woman must get an abortion even if she doesn't want one. The outlawing of abortion means that no one can get an abortion, legally, whether they want one or not. Same's true in a parallel way in this gay-marriage debate: If civil union is effectively available to gays then they have a choice to be civially united, or not. But why should gays insist that "marriage" must legally apply to everybody who is civilly united or otherwise, whether or not he or she wants it to?

(Yes, it's a lame one, but it's the best I got right now.)

—Hoot Mon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 8:07 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 8:56 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 301 by Taz, posted 01-12-2007 8:56 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4097
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 300 of 306 (376608)
01-12-2007 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Fosdick
01-12-2007 8:34 PM


Civil Union or Marriage, without the force of law they are nothing. I quibble over the semantics game, but semantics in this case is emotionally loaded and, apparently, for good reason given US history and the lack of federal support for the equality of the two.

Religionists, Gays, Shaveheads, democrates, lefthanders, unionists, non-unonists, redheads, baldies...everyone has an emotionally charged problem somewhere with someone. People are a strange breed. I guess that's just life.

Maybe I'm not intollerant enough. I'm missing out somehow. If everyone used common sense and tollerance for human differences like me (for god sake I even like creationists!)then we wouldn't have these problems. What a dull world that would be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Fosdick, posted 01-12-2007 8:34 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019