Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

This is really starting to annoy me

Election 2004 LGBT same sex marriage Politicians

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 04:25 PM

Quote

If Kerry was even half the Garak I hope he is, he'd nail Bush for speaking outside his authority and *NOT* sticking to strictly the question of civil union....
To do so would be to bring up an analysis of the situation that also "nails" the homosexual-marriage activists for focussing on the word rather than the more legally sound and easier-to-get-others-to-agree-to legal rights that most of them claim it's about. Perhaps his unwillingness to do that to them even when it would give him another way to hit Bush reveals which side he's really on?

Edited by Delvo, 07 March 2004 - 11:02 PM.


#42 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 07 March 2004 - 10:48 PM

^As a gay-marriage supporter, I think the word does matter.  "Civil Unions" are a different term.  Which means if congress or the supreme court decided that same-sex civil unions had to be recognized by the Federal government, congress gets to write laws specific to "civil unions" and specific to "marriage".

Personally, I don't care what the government wants to call marriages or civil unions so long as everybody gets the same deal and no more "wedges" can be driven into that particular fault line.  Having two separate terms doesn't necessarally address that.

So, my stance is to allow gay MARRIAGE and call it MARRIAGE or allow gay civil unions and call all hetero-marriages civil unions as well.

It's a stupid debate that's way too preoccupied with word choice.  But to prevent creating second-class citizens it's gotta be the same word.

The old "I don't support gay marriage, but I do support gay civil unions" is tantamount to "Separate but equal is fine" and we all know how well that one worked out.

-Nick

#43 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 March 2004 - 10:55 PM

Nick, on Mar 7 2004, 07:46 PM, said:

allow gay civil unions and call all hetero-marriages civil unions as well.
Not exactly.  Call all "civil" hetero marriages civil unions and I'm with you. I also disagree that it's "stupid" to be stuck on the word marriage.  Whether or not you like it, marriage is inextricably linked to religion.  It's a frelling holy SACRAMENT (on a par with Baptism) in the Catholic Church and imnsho, the stupid thing is to ignore the importance of the word and the church ritual to those who are religious because guess what?  There's a whole lot of them.  And if the idea is to actually achieve the result of same sex couples receiving the same legal benefits of formalized unions as hetero couples do, you can't just ignore the fact that to too many people the word marriage refers to a religious rite.  You're not going to make that go away by belly aching about the multiple meanings of the term because no matter how much noise you make it won't change the importance of the word to religion.  That last ain't an opinion it's a gorram fact.
Posted Image

#44 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 07 March 2004 - 11:03 PM

^ To be fair on that point, I think "marriage" was religion's word long before the first state sanctioned a civil union of any sort....

And yes. It's a sacrament. You want to tell me not to get hung up on semantics over a sacrament and I tell you that you can go to hell---- better you than me.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#45 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 March 2004 - 11:07 PM

the'Hawk, on Mar 7 2004, 08:01 PM, said:

^ To be fair on that point, I think "marriage" was religion's word long before the first state sanctioned a civil union of any sort....
Was that arrow directed at Nick or me... :unsure:
Posted Image

#46 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 07 March 2004 - 11:17 PM

^ Arrow?

Um, it landed I know not where?

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#47 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 07 March 2004 - 11:20 PM

Nick, on Mar 7 2004, 09:46 PM, said:

So, my stance is to allow gay MARRIAGE and call it MARRIAGE or allow gay civil unions and call all hetero-marriages civil unions as well.
Ditto. But these two solutions are not quite equal to each other; the latter describes both accurately, and the former misapplies one's name to the other.

Quote

It's a stupid debate that's way too preoccupied with word choice.
Yes. In fact, my problem with the homosexual activists' side is that they chose to go after the word instead of the substance. If they hadn't, their legal goals would have sailed right on to approval all over, and the cause of separating church and state would receive a big boost from the severing of the last great tie between the two from our theocratic past, all without all of this enmity or any verbal hymptydumptyism.

Edited by Delvo, 07 March 2004 - 11:21 PM.


#48 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 07 March 2004 - 11:24 PM

As a gay male, I suppose I should be biased in this regard and you will be correct to think so.  However, my thoughts on the issue are not quite as cut and dried as you might think.

In short, let the religions have their marriages. I could frankly care less about them.  What I want to see are gay couples getting all of the financial and the official support that straight married couples get but without all the religious baggage attached to it.  Most of the gay people I know strongly dislike religion anyway for all of the persecution they get (I try to be fair on the topic but it's hard...) so I'm sure they will be more than happy to compromise on this. I know I would be.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#49 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 07 March 2004 - 11:29 PM

Better yet than everybody getting the same "package" of rights that marriage currently calls for would be if these rights were separated from each other so that you could pick some and not others....

#50 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 08 March 2004 - 12:14 PM

Well, to me "Marriage", "Civil Unions", "Getting Hitched" (Ooo here's an idea "I don't support gay marriage, but I do support them gettin' hitched". :lol:) are all interchangable--but I understand how there's a religious stigma attached to the one, that some people can *not* accept the interchangability of.

That being said, Delvo you nailed *exactly* how I feel about the whole thing.  But it isn't just the gay rights activists--both sides are behaving as they're more concerned with the wording than the substance.

As long as the terminology is the same for gay "hitchings" as it is for straight ones and there's no way to make laws targeting only one of those groups, then I'm for it.  Call the government recognition of marriages anything you like, just call it the same thing for everybody.

So, if we keep straight unions on the books as "marriages" and define gay unions as "civil unions" well . . . discriminatory policies are still possible . . . but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Delvo said:

Better yet than everybody getting the same "package" of rights that marriage currently calls for would be if these rights were separated from each other so that you could pick some and not others....

:Oo: I don't understand what you mean.

-Nick

Edited by Nick, 08 March 2004 - 12:16 PM.


#51 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 08 March 2004 - 03:18 PM

Nick, on Mar 8 2004, 11:12 AM, said:

Delvo you nailed *exactly* how I feel about the whole thing.  But it isn't just the gay rights activists--both sides are behaving as they're more concerned with the wording than the substance.
Ah, but their reasons are different. One side chose to make it be about undefining that word instead of letting it be about the legal priveledges that they claim to be motivated by, even though that would have been the simpler goal to try to achieve anyway. The other side, the anti-homosexual-marriage crowd, was forced into it by that choice.

Quote

Delvo said:

Better yet than everybody getting the same "package" of rights that marriage currently calls for would be if these rights were separated from each other so that you could pick some and not others....

:Oo: I don't understand what you mean.
I didn't even see that part before I hit the "quote" button, I was in such a rush to switch pages so I wouldn't have your avatar pounding my eyes like grapes in a wine press anymore...  :eek4: :lol: :Oo:

Marriage comes with a de facto unification of property ownership. Even if certain things are in fact owned under just one name, both people are treated as equally entitled to the stuff. Thus, divorce becomes a government-sanctioned theft in many cases, with stuff rightfully belonging to one person being half-or-more given to the other. For straight men it's particularly bad, because the legal system is skewed so hard in favor of giving everything to the woman by default unless she's a drug-addicted schizophrenic devil-worshipping serial murderer. Because of that and its equivalent in child custody cases, there is a growing phenomenon in this country of men who want or are in long-term relationships with women avoiding marriage anyway because it's become hardly anything more than a trap for ruining men's lives and taking away everything they ever cared about. But there's also nothing really preventing it from happening to others either. If the bundle of legal priveledges associated with marriage were separated on a checklist, a couple could get medical visitation and decision-making rights but not the asset-merging. They're separate things, so there's no need to package them together.

I had another example in which a couple would go ahead and merge ownership but not take one of the other "rights" of marriage, but I've forgotten what it was. Maybe I'll remember it again if I see that list of the "rights" of marriage that someone made in another thread... Anyway, it was a list of at least half a dozen different legal things that happen automaticly in marriage even though they're quite unrelated and don't need to be smooshed together like that. If they are "rights" as the homosexual activists contends, then shouldn't picking only the ones you want also be considered a "right"?

#52 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 08 March 2004 - 05:00 PM

^ Hubby and I signed a pre-nupt declaring all of our finances separate.  That is to protect me from his money-grabbing ex-wife that would take all of my money as well as his in a heartbeat.  The property we own together because we bought it together was listed separately.  We also set that there would be no alimony either way in event of a separation.  We did that because he is shell-shocked after the first divorce and that way I could calm his fears that he wouldn't be taken to the cleaners yet again if we were to divorce.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#53 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 08 March 2004 - 05:14 PM

That was a good solution.  I think more and more people will migrate toward pre-nups as time goes on.  But the checklist approach Delvo mentions would mean (essentially) that everyone had a "prenuptual" agreement.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#54 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 09 March 2004 - 12:05 AM

Delvo, on Mar 8 2004, 03:16 PM, said:

I didn't even see that part before I hit the "quote" button, I was in such a rush to switch pages so I wouldn't have your avatar pounding my eyes like grapes in a wine press anymore...  :eek4: :lol: :Oo:
:lol: Well, I don't want to cause anyone bodily harm or damage to their vision! I've made the avatar non-blinking . . . hopefully that'll spare some eyeballs 'round here. ;)

-Nick

#55 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 09 March 2004 - 12:17 AM

Just look what it already did to George's eyes in that picture!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election, 2004, LGBT, same sex marriage, Politicians

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users