Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-28-2008, 02:27 AM
 
Location: Boise
4,426 posts, read 5,918,129 times
Reputation: 1701

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
It has nothing to do with "not as good" so much as "different". Being gay is different. Different rules, terminology and sociology must be applied. Without this you have confustion. I was reading a newsletter from Powell's Bookstore last week. A local author was being interviewed. I saw his picture at the top of the article. Later in the narrative he was asked about influences on his work. He said "my husband is a painter and we talk about color a lot ..." Well I have to tell you I spent five minutes scanning the article again from top to bottom to see where I missed the part about him being a woman. Was the picture in fact of the male columnist and not actually of the author. Finally I concluded that he might be, must be borrowing the term 'husband'. Either that or there was an editorial lapse in the publication. In the end I'm not really certain. Confusion. Hardly planet jeopardizing but don't you see... ... My GF uses the term 'partner' to refer to me on occasion, as we are not married. I know that this automatically tells some people that I am actually a woman unless she refers to me by name or gender. Sometimes you can hear the sigh of relief on the other end of the line when the confusion is cleared up. It cuts both ways I suppose. However, it simply isn't true that "marriage" can be expanded to include gay unions and still retain the status and privilege that it currently has. It isn't true that no one straight is hurt by gay people gaining the right to call themselves 'husband and wife'. It makes a caricature of the entire institution and lowers the validity of it for both gay and straight people. As long as Civil Unions do in fact confer the proper and neccessary legal protections for the principals in a union, gay or straight then it is all the accomodation that need be made. Seperate but equal under Jim Crow was a sham. Anyone could see that the facilities created for the use of 'colored' people were far inferior to those created for the use of whites. If the facilities and institutions built to serve 'colored' people had actually been 'equal' there might never have been a Civil Rights movement. I've known my gay friend for twelve years now. I don't think a single day goes by where the issue of his being gay doesn't come up. Its a defining point and it is a very different way of being in and looking at the world. Gay people want it both ways. To celebrate and revel in their difference and yet be accepted as equal. In other words, no different, than anyone straight. For all my arguments to the contrary I actually don't harbor any malice towards gay people. I am not religious so I am amused rather than outraged at the way gay people seek recognition from religious bodies. My only reason for posting is to offer explanations for why the churches in particular must behave as they do towards gays.

H
I actually see your point.. but just to address what you've said... it isn't about what gays want the churches to recognize or society.. its what they want their government to recognize.. the government they pay taxes to. It is about being treated the same under the law.. and not about some guy refering to his boyfriend as his husband and going around insisting that everyone use this term... Most people refer to their significant other by name.. and it really is semantics.. BUT creating a seperate term under the LAW for a group of people that are different is not equal.. and sends a message that love is somehow different for gay people than it is for straight people... Love is love.. telling gay people that their love is not the same is insulting.. not because it comes from a church.. we're use to that and accept that.. but because it comes from our government... because our government is being influenced and hijacked by churches to not extend the same recognition of our unions. denying people equal rights under the law based on sociatal confusion is hardly a leg to stand on for reason's against it.. besides if woman is refering to someone as her wife.. i think it's pretty easy to catch on don't you? a husband is a man that you're married to..
using these situations to give reason for not extending people their rights is absurd.. gays wanting it both ways? we're ALL different.. gay's seeking recognition for their difference is no different than an african american couple, or an irish couple or a jewish couple... we're all different. I really don't understand the aprehensiveness behind not extending equal rights to gays and lesbians.. it just always seems like another dodgy paperthin argument is thrown up.. in a "what about this" mentality.. when it is clearly apparent that there is not logical reason behind denying then their rights.. its a matter of just not liking the idea.. or believing it to be sinful or hell if I know.. but I'm bound to get to the truth.. I'm tired of these flimsy arguments being thrown at the issue to sidebar the real reasons and implications for it.
If you really are hesitant and worry about the effects of gay marriage.. there are plenty of other places and nations that have had it for years to look to.. and as it's been said before.. confusion.. slipperyslope...sky is falling.. god condemning... world is coming to an end.. families are ruined has not happened...
Besides the fact.. gays should not have to persuade the population to grant them their rights.. the constitution provides that to everyone... so I'm not too terribly concerned with changing opinions.. I'm just trying to understand where all the intolerance and justifications are coming from. Granting gays equality under the law when it comes to marriage will happen.. because it is the right thing to do.. and eventually america is known for doing the right thing... we have a very oppressive and skeletons in the closet history.. where many powerful influential groups have ended up on the wrong side of history... this issue is one of many.. and i'm sure there will be more to come.. the irony of all this is.. that it could very well one day be the religious christian folks on the other end of the coin one day...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-28-2008, 07:41 AM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,628,367 times
Reputation: 3028
Here's a better idea, no civil unions or marriages as far as government is concerned, for straight or gay. Why should govt be involved? I see no legitimate reasons. Let people do as they please on their own time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2008, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,785,443 times
Reputation: 3550
That's all cool but what about single people who are still screwed?
Why should marriage entitle people to all these benefits, privileges, and rights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2008, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Mountains of middle TN
5,245 posts, read 16,426,878 times
Reputation: 6131
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveTodayLez08 View Post
That's all cool but what about single people who are still screwed?
Why should marriage entitle people to all these benefits, privileges, and rights?
It's a valid point. Just because you've not found someone that you think you can tolerate every single day for the rest of your life, why should you be punished? I think the tax thing is big to me. I don't think you should get a tax break just for being married. For having children that you're supporting, fine, but just for signing a stupid marriage license? No! Other than taxes though, how do you think singles are getting the shaft?

Quote:
It's not meant to be equal! That is the whole point. You have a problem with it but, really, its not about you. I have gay friends. I would not presume too much about being gay, but come on. Lets be practical. There is a big. A very big difference between being gay and being straight. A 100% gay lifestyle is not sustainable. A 100% straight lifestyle is sustainable. Civil Unions are a huge step forward in the civil rights of gay people. "Marriage" is sacred. Gay's cannot, must not, have access to "marriage" unless they can fulfill the dictates and mandates of "marriage". The difference IMO between gay adults and every single other category of 'alternative lifestyles' is that gays want straight society to accept them on equal terms. It is never going to happen. I'm sorry, but thats the way it is. And don't come to me about African Americans either. Two hundred years after Emancipation, African Americans are still not equal. And, they never will be. That too, is the way it is.
I've got gay friends too. And I'd like to know why it's not meant to be equal for them? What makes you so much more special than they are? Because you were lucky enough to be born with what society deems a 'normal' sexual preference?

How is their lifestyle not sustainable? I've known quite a few gay couples that were together until one of them passed away. Their relationships are just as sustainable as a straight persons. Is it because they can't pro-create?? Let's face it, there are plenty straight teens out there making sure this planet will never come to an end. And there are plenty straight married couples these days that don't want and will never have children. I know plenty of them and I'm jealous as hell that I wasn't that smart. Having children isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Leave it to Beaver never showed the reality of parenting and so many people are carrying on that show with their children. Their kids grow up thinking that having a child is the be all end all in the world and it's going to be the best thing ever. Sorry, but to many people it's just not. I love my kids and won't give them up for the world, but I've been very honest with them that having children is a major strain financially and on a marriage. I've assured my kids that if they decide to not have children I'll be very happy for them.

Hmmmm........ That wandered off the beaten path somehow. Back to topic....

So, just why can gays never be accepted on equal terms? I accept them just as readily as a straight person. I judge people based on who they are and what they do in this world, not based on the sex of who they fall in love with. So in your opinion, what must gays do to "fulfill the dictates and mandates of "marriage"? And honestly, why should they have to meet your expectations to be given something that so many others have? What makes your opinion so special? And I don't mean you specifically, I mean those with like minds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2008, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,064,636 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveTodayLez08 View Post
That's all cool but what about single people who are still screwed?
Why should marriage entitle people to all these benefits, privileges, and rights?
I'm not clear about all of these benefits that married people have over singles? My wife and I actually pay more in taxes than if we were not married due to the progressive income tax. We have right of survivor, but the truly single don't need that as far as I can see. I can see how gay couples are disadvantaged, but not singles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2008, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,292 posts, read 37,174,791 times
Reputation: 16397
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
I'm not clear about all of these benefits that married people have over singles? My wife and I actually pay more in taxes than if we were not married due to the progressive income tax. We have right of survivor, but the truly single don't need that as far as I can see. I can see how gay couples are disadvantaged, but not singles.
Same-sex couples can in fact make any legal arrangements they want, from power of attorney to wills, etc. The same can be said for unmarried heterosexual couples. The benefits offered by governments are pretty much in relation to children (tax breaks), but in reality, any parent married or not, can receive these benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2008, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,064,636 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
Same-sex couples can in fact make any legal arrangements they want, from power of attorney to wills, etc. The same can be said for unmarried heterosexual couples. The benefits offered by governments are pretty much in relation to children (tax breaks), but in reality, any parent married or not, can receive these benefits.
There is an entire array of benefits that accrue automatically to married couples. Gays deserve no less. Furthermore, gays have a fundamental religious right to be married. It's a matter for the couple and their church, not the state to decide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2008, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,254,467 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
Same-sex couples can in fact make any legal arrangements they want, from power of attorney to wills, etc. The same can be said for unmarried heterosexual couples. The benefits offered by governments are pretty much in relation to children (tax breaks), but in reality, any parent married or not, can receive these benefits.
You are completely right - ANY person, married or single, straight or gay, has the rights you noted above. They have to take advantage of them though.

Here in Arizona, there in NO AUTOMATIC surviorship rights for married persons (community property). The ARE surviorship rights available, but they must be so designated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2008, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,140 posts, read 2,202,837 times
Reputation: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by leisesturm View Post
it's not meant to be equal! That is the whole point. you have a problem with it but, really, its not about you. I have gay friends. I would not presume too much about being gay, but come on. Lets be practical. There is a big. A very big difference between being gay and being straight. A 100% gay lifestyle is not sustainable. A 100% straight lifestyle is sustainable. Civil unions are a huge step forward in the civil rights of gay people. "marriage" is sacred. Gay's cannot, must not, have access to "marriage" unless they can fulfill the dictates and mandates of "marriage". The difference imo between gay adults and every single other category of 'alternative lifestyles' is that gays want straight society to accept them on equal terms. It is never going to happen. I'm sorry, but thats the way it is. And don't come to me about african americans either. Two hundred years after emancipation, african americans are still not equal. And, they never will be. That too, is the way it is.

H
hahahahhahahahah
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2008, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,292 posts, read 37,174,791 times
Reputation: 16397
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
There is an entire array of benefits that accrue automatically to married couples. Gays deserve no less. Furthermore, gays have a fundamental religious right to be married. It's a matter for the couple and their church, not the state to decide.
Which "arrays"? Would you care to tell us?

If "gays" deserve the same as married couples, why shouldn't heterosexual unmarried couples "deserve" the same? How about a bisexual (married or unmarried" couple? Should they also receive the same?

I have no idea of what you are talking about in relation to "gays having a fundamental religious right to be married." That makes no sense to me, at least from a religious standpoint, since the idea of marriage is to have children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top