|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted August 20, 2004 12:48 AM |
|
|
Using separate terms fosters the erroneous belief, which Consis is currently illustrating, that gay unions and straight unions are not the same institution. They are.
The conservative coalition isn't interested in allowing same-sex unions in any way, shape, or form. The only ones who will be swayed are those in the middle. In practical terms, yes, the concession of separate terms may be necessary in order to make any progress at all. Unfortunately, I cannot help feeling that by allowing this, "we" would undermine our position and validate the idea that gay and straight unions are fundamentally different. The practical difference, as bort points out, is that separate is rarely equal. Artificial distinctions like this can easily become the basis for more distinctions.
In everyday life, of course, gays will use whatever terms straights use. "Partner" and "union" are sure-fire flags that a person is in a same-sex relationship. Wherever discrimination still exists, and even where it doesn't, gays will talk about their "spouses" and "marriages," regardless of the legal terminology.
I have no problem with the term "civil union" itself; actually, I prefer it to "marriage" since it upholds separation of church and state in a way the older term obviously does not. I just think that the same term should be used for all unions. Love is love, and legal union is legal union, regardless of the surface details. But yes, I am well aware that it is unlikely to ever happen. 
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 20, 2004 03:41 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 27 Aug 2004
|
**Sigh**
Such confusion. This is exactly the reason why I created my thread differentiating girls and boys, male and female, masculine and feminine.
bort criticized me for stating something that was so obvious that it simply didn't need discussion.
Well here we are once again in an argument based on principle, religion, and genetics of the same debate.
Males are not females nor the reverse. I don't care how ignorant, uneducated, or having some nack for stating the obvious you think I am bort. The two sexes aren't the same and that is my core disagreement for the debate in this thread!
Do I have to spell it out for you? I shouldn't! You know well that men are anatomically different from women including differences in hormones, behavior, and other such related sexual differences. This is clear and cut in the world of medicine. What one doctor prescribes for one female patient may, in fact, be contraindicated for male patients and vice versa. Just as the medical world sees the difference, so too should the social world.
Homosexual relationships consist of same sexes, yes? Let's say the relationship is one of dual feminine. In this relationship, if they decide they want to have children then the two will have the option of artificial insimination. This means if they have a child, it will have not only a social bond, but many similar genetic characteristics as it's parents. These characteristics are usually more closely focused on when it concerns things like genetic disorders. Eye color, hair color, skin color, and certain behavioral traits aren't as much of a concern at birth because they will not likely adversely affect the child's chances for survival.
Now think about a homosexual relationship with dual masculine. Socially speaking, this is a very rare occurrence. I don't even have to quote statistics for you bort, you already know that women overwhelmingly end up supporting their children over men. This evidence is easily acquired if you simply check with your local social services in the phone book. And on top of that you could easily ask anyone and most will tell you that it is mostly an unspoken understanding in which most of the world simply knows that the mother will usually be the one to maintain the parent relationship for the child.
Sure sure, I'm sure you can find some minute case hidden somewhere that will defy all the odds, etc., but by and large women are generally known to be the more reliable care givers.
My argument is that you and many others are categorically grouping both sexes in the same sex marriage debate as the same. But in all logical, factual, and believable reality they aren't the same. Male same sex relationships will be both categorically, socially, and genetically different from female same sex relationships. Argue all you like that it's a race thing or some sort of new age discrimination crusade but it isn't.
Because of this they are different and not equal but as human beings they deserve the same rights and protections as I do as two citizens of the same country.
It's all really very simple. It isn't even a big deal. America is firstly freedom of religion and if you'll please check your facts, you will notice that most religions starting with the world's most prominent: Islamic, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Orthodoxy, etc all agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But I suppose you handfulls people are the ones who are correct in this matter and the rest of the world is crazy. It's all about race and discrimination(sic).....is laughable.
I suggest tasting some reality and go visit your local healthcare providers. They might be able to help fill you in on the differences between men and women that I left out.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 22, 2004 08:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Same rights, different title?
Doesn't that sound a bit like separate but equal? {/quote}bort, while acknowledging that any kind of distinction might leave the door open for some type of erosion down the road, I must at once point out to you that "separate but equal," as that reality played itself out, resulted more from the separate infrastructures actually required to perpetuate the theoretial system. Since equal infrastructures were never created, equality never could be achieved in the separation.
Also, the "separate but equal" phase became a stepping stone for its own abolishment after it proved a failure, and a level in the process of achieving a greater level of equality.
In comparing that situation to this one (in which no infrastructural changes would be required in order to extend the legal institution to the gay community), what in your mind might be the real-life consequences of using a separate term? Also, if this first compromise step proved a failure, couldn't it at least serve as a stepping stone in the battle to achieve the ultimate goal of equality?
Finally, what would your legal strategy be, in constitutional terms, for fighting this battle either way (marriage vs. civil union)?
Khaelo, any additional thoughts on these issues?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 24, 2004 02:38 AM |
|
Edited By: bort on 23 Aug 2004
|
What's in a name?
There's a very good reason not to use separate titles for a legal union between two members of the same gender and between two people of different genders -- doing so is nothing more than being petty and cruel. It turns the word and the concept of "marriage" into something that divides rather than something that can and should unite. In an already divided world and country, it builds yet another fence betweeen "us" and "them." This time its "fags" "dykes" and "breeders."
My marriage is very important to me, of course. My wife and I have chosen to take on life together. I share in her dreams and she shares in mine. I try to help her through her troubles and she tries to help me through mine. I love that she is the first thing I see in the morning and the last I see at night. I know her better than anyone else in the world does, I know her fears and her hopes and she knows the same of me. When I experience new things, see new sights, I want her there. When I succeed at something, she is the first one I want to tell and when I fail, she is the first I confide in. I value every moment we've spent together, even the fights, even the pain and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. In short, I love her.
Can a homosexual couple have exactly the same relationship as I have with my wife? Well, no two relationships are exactly alike, so probably not. But can a homosexual couple's feelings for one another be qualitatively the same as mine? I, of course, can't definitively say since I myself have never experienced homosexual love, but my inclination is to believe that they can. On something as fundamental to life, I would say it is best to err on the side of kindness rather than cruelty in the name of protecting something that isn't being threatened. Someone's second marriage is probably different from their first. A marriage in which one member is considerably older than the other is probably different from one in which both are the same age. A marriage with children is probably different from one without and one with children from a previous marriage is probably more different still. Do we need to titles for each of them? Further gradations of subtle differences in human encounters?
Life is difficult and often painful as it is. I see no reason to add to the pain and difficulty by telling a group of people that their feelings, that their love is inferior. Because that's what the separate titles is doing. Nobody ever fights to prevent someone else from having the same title as them unless they think that the other person isn't worthy, isn't good enough. Two seperate titles is saying, loud and clear "On the one hand we have true love and on the other is the imposter."
Even if I'm wrong and homosexual love is qualitatively different from heterosexual love and is, in fact inferior, what reason is there to rub it in? I, for one, am not going to be the one to prevent somebody from trying to find happiness.
Marriage is not weakened or threatened by homosexuals taking the same title. It is cheapened by refusing them use of the word. The word could be a symbol of humanities common ground -- that all of us are looking for someone to share our lives with. Or it can be a symbol of humanities failings -- the pettiness, hatred and xenophobia that seem to play such a prominent role in our existence. We can either use marriage to highlight that which brings us together, or we can use it to cast a glaring spotlight on the things that drive us apart.
That is why I find the use of separate terms distateful. Perhaps at this time that is the only realistic option, but I'm not going to pay lip service to the idea and pretend that it represents any sort of fairness or acceptance.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 24, 2004 06:34 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 27 Aug 2004
|
The Unknown
I simply don't know...
The people around me respect me for my decisive and strong character. The kids on the nieghborhood street look up to me because I am the only person they know of that leads a stable life style. My kids, my wife, and my friends all like to think of me as someone who is going to be there in good times and tough times. This is my signature in person.
This thread is exhausting me. I simply don't know if I'm right about my beliefs in marriage. I'm tired, feel threatened, and securely hold a tight firm grasp on the one relationship in my life that I will always be able to depend on. My wife is my rock in life. Neither of us wear rings because we feel that strong about our bond. When we were in the airforce and being interrogated so many people were telling us that we shouldn't be together. I remember what it was like. I remember how I felt when I was commanded to not be with the woman I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.
I would never wish that upon any person. And because of what I've been through with her I know that I could very well be wrong about the position I've taken in this matter. I guess I'm simply afraid I might lose the strongest and most wonderful relationship I've ever had if some same-sex'ers obtain the same designation for what I hold to be most dear.
I guess all I can maintain is that I simply don't know if I'm right. If I am doing as bort said, 'inhibiting their persuit of happiness', then I would be terribly ashamed of myself. But as I said, I don't know what the case is for certain. I just don't know.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted August 24, 2004 07:17 PM |
|
|
Then Be Ashamed
Concis, are you telling me that you are opposing the fact that two people who wish to spend the rest of their lives together, because they love and honoureach other and want to build a life together, have that dream home in the suburbs with the two dogs and the cosy fireplace, invite their parents over for Christmas dinner, exchange romantic and slighty suggestive gifts on Vaentine's Day, care for the other in sickness and in health, be a part of their community watch etc etc ad nauseum BEACUSE YOU HAVE A GUT FEELING?????!!!
You can dress it up in all of the fancy flowery language you want, but in the end that is what it boils down to.
I am the closest I've ever gotten to being angry in one of these debates, but I can't believe you can sit, knowing that the only reason you hold a particular view is beacause you have a certain 'image in your community'.
Do you think the people who are being denied their rights to be joined in a loving union give a DAMN about your community image?
No they bloody well don't. All they care about is that it's people like you who are downclassing their emotions and denying them a fuller happiness in their relationship.
I can tell you bort, that I've been in love. And it was great, there was no feeling quite like it. I knew his quirks, his habits, I could predict what he would say and I loved him. In the end it didn't work out as we'd planned, but that's a different issue altogether.
Fact was, I don't think I could have given any more of my love to a woman.
Take what you want out of that.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted August 24, 2004 07:31 PM |
|
|
Those were two great posts, you guys (Consis and bort -- Asmo and I were posting at the same time). bort, in principle I agree with every word of yours. I think it is unfair and petty to demand a different name for what I also perceive as an equal state of human intimacy.
My focus has primarily been on achieving the greatest possible fairness in what I perceive to be an otherwise unwinnable battle. I have watched what happens and have evolved into a kind of thinking that I tend to think is most practical, but admittedly not the fairest, solution.
In terms of strictly legal concerns, my friends can't file joint tax returns. They can't enroll one another's children in school, adopt one another's children, or jointly adopt a new child (at least it's very difficult). They can't make medical decisions for one another or the children in critical cercumstances or pick one another's ashes up at the post office because they aren't legally considered family members. And most of all, they have to live together (many would perceive this a sinful) without any kind of social recognition of the legitimacy of their relationships. (The irony of the conservative position on this last point is most distressing and ridiculous, particularly in the case of Christian partners who perceive themselves in such a manner.) And on, and on, and on.
In short, they currently enjoy none of the multitude of legal and social rights and protections you and I and our children enjoy as heterosexual married couples. So in these practical terms, I guess what I am saying is the unfairness of the landslide of legal ramifications is even more unfair than the single concern of the separate semantic designation.
In terms of sheer numbers, it clearly appears to me that a significantly larger number of the constituency would support granting the same legal rights to gay partners as long as it's called something else. Consis appears to be one of those people, and I think he represents a huge number of individuals who have, for whatever reasons, deep feelings about this. I think he is genuinely grappling with those feelings, but he and many others may not be able to overcome them anytime soon. In addition, most people who have already made up their minds on this issue don't have borts and Khaelos and Peacemakers in their lives trying to give them further fodder for consideration.
Perhaps what I am doing is paying lip service to a petty, unfair and (I still believe) artificial distinction. But the bottom line is, we have a much better chance of securing the day-to-day legal rights for the community if we give in on this one point. I don't like it either; I just think it's the reality.
Our option is to wait and continue the public debate until the people on the fence are more willing to come down on our side. But who knows how long that could take? I remain increasingly concerned for all those out there having to put up with the current realities of the standing situation. My choice at this moment is to give in on this point so they have a better chance of not having to do that.
Thanks for this wonderful discussion guys. I think this is extremely important for all of us to be thinking about this issue and listening to one another. I hope I have heard you all as well as you have appeared to hear me. I have really tried to do so.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 25, 2004 04:14 AM |
|
|
Go Peacemaker!
Winning battles is more important than winning the war at once, because ultimately it brings victory.
But we will never stop fighting for that ultimate victory.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted August 25, 2004 04:24 AM |
|
|
Thank you, bort, for handling the "quantitative distinction" issue with such eloquence. 
In my state, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. That means that the beaurocracy would have to accomodate civil unions equally with marriage, and paperwork would use a lot of slashes and combination terms. Maybe a few years of constantly checking off "spouse/partner" for their straight marriages would get people to realize how silly it is to use two terms for the same thing. If that's what it takes to make progress, that's what it takes.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 25, 2004 07:59 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 27 Aug 2004
|
Puppets
I think it's great to exercise your freedom by speaking your minds about this issue here. Using vague descriptions such as 'qualitative, quantitative, ethnic, etc'......nice words coming from some minority Unitarian Universalists/Paganists attempting to continue to reinforce your own personal religious views. This is where I really feel the need to remind you of the nature of your philosophies and deliveries.
It's really very simple to most of the world. Most of the world is either a muslim, Jew, christian, or some branch off from one of those three. And even so there are plenty of Taoists, Budhists, etc.....
Nearly 75% of every major world religion believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. How very arrogant and naive you all seem to be while making this out to be some major cause for the world's leading civil liberty country. America the beautiful never sounded so ugly at this juncture.
This isn't about america or any other country. This is about the majority of the human race living and letting to live while holding their own personal religious beliefs near and dear to their very human hearts. Yes I understand that these votes are taking place here in this country but some of the posters here act like these decisions are being conducted for all humanity. I submit that same sex marriage, civil union, or anything else defining the lawful relationship between two human beings of the same sex to be a largely insignificant matter!
I mean really this is not, I repeat, IS NOT related to the suffering of black people in america, South Africa, or anywhere else in the world! To suggest that old addage, 'seperate but equal' is ludicrous! This matter will go away faster than it arrived and the reason is because you're all being played for fools by an incumbent who's trying to take your eyes off the ball if you get my meaning. As soon as the election is over this issue is dead in the water.
The fact of the matter is nobody really cares if people who have chosen a life-partner want legal rights and representation. They can have it! Globally speaking however, you should wake up and smell the very thing that you all debate about constantly. You know the one....mankind = homoreligious. Ergo you cannot hope gain the very modern adoption of the word "marriage" for this same sex relation political cause/purpose. It simply isn't going to happen. And to think that this could be prelude to what happened after the 'seperate but equal' was handed down is absolutely not true. There will be no additional furthering of organizational opposition to people who have chosen this way of life. Why? Because no one really cares except for their own religious beliefs which compel them to maintain the word only.
If you all want to continue your own inadvertent governing as puppets then let that be your prerogative, but I markedly refuse based upon my own search for happiness and the pursuit thereof. The more important issues to discuss are things like nuclear proliferation, terrorism, crimes against humanity, mass graves, Abu Graib prison scandals, Iraq wars, Science and technology, etc. etc.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 25, 2004 05:54 PM |
|
|
Consis --
I must respectfully disagree with your proposition that this issue is insignificant and will simply "go away" after the election. Statistics, both modern and historical, suggest that approximately 10.5% of the populace globally is/has always been homosexual. We're talking about an arena of rights that affects this rather significant number of people in many facets of their everyday lives. I have known of this battle as an ongoing struggle in the lives of many friends of mine for decades.
By the way, only 5% of the populace in this country is American Indian. By analogy, your argument implies that it would be insignificant to deny all Indians the right to marry, adopt children, make live-determining decisions in medical emergencies, etc. as well.
We cannot pick and choose which groups of people have no right to seek equality. This country was born and founded presumably on the principle that each individual is significant enough to enjoy the same rights and protections as each other despite their differences, including religious ones. The argument that most individuals subscribe to a major religion and that therefore the religious tenets of those major religions should rule the outcome of this issue flies in the face of the First Amendment to the constitution.
I would agree with you that religious dogma appears to be largely at the root of global homophobia. But that should be an argument against applying that homophobia as the determining factor here, not for it.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 26, 2004 01:39 AM |
|
|
Religious puppets you say, Cnsis? Well, we are not the ones speaking from the viewing point of our religious dogmas. You are! And the worst thing in your post is that to you it seems justifiable to deny others equal rights based on the religious afflimation of the majority. Back to the Middle Ages is all I can say.
I couldnt care less how religions felt about this issue. They should not have any saying in the ultimate decision, and its really sad you brought that in the discussion. Seperation of state and religion is crucial for any democratic country.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted August 26, 2004 01:45 AM |
|
|
grr!
This isn't about religion, Consis. It's about personal freedom. I'm bisexual. Gender isn't a factor in attraction for me, and it is illogical for me to use different terms for union based on gender. The difference between male and female is not greater than the similarities between humans. You can tell yourself that a same-sex union is fundamentally different than a opposite-sex union because you're monosexual and only see one side of the coin. You can choose not to extend your empathy to others; such is your position. But you cannot convince me out of my own experience. You cannot tell me things contrary to what I know and expect me to believe your arguments. Hide behind religion if you like, but our constitution does not permit the law to do the same. Separation of church and state, remember?
This isn't an election-only issue. One might argue that Kerry's stance is so waffly that it's hardly an issue at all in the election. Whatever the results in November, though, the issue is VERY important to us (is your own marriage insignificant? how would you feel about others dismissing it like that?), and we will not go away. We care! You can distance yourself because these aren't your rights denied, not your problem, not your issue. Others don't have that luxury. Therefore, it is mere self-delusion to console oneself by pretending that the issue doesn't matter much and will be over soon anyway. It's not true.
And if you think that allowing us to marry will degrade what you already have, there are some serious pot-calling-kettle problems with your "puppet" accusation. Look around! Look at some of the yahoos already availing themselves of three, four, five straight marriages! Do their shenanigans have an effect on your relationship with your wife? You have your rights. You can make vital decisions for your wife in medical emergencies, file joint tax returns, raise children as two legal guardians. etc. Allowing gay marriage will not take any of that away from you. If you believe otherwise, ask yourself why. Who told you that? Why do you believe it?
That's all I can say right now. I am sufficiently angered to drop out of this discussion. However, I will not delete or edit this post, as I have deleted others, because some things just need to be said. Courtesy, grace, and social niceties be damned.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 26, 2004 08:20 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 27 Aug 2004
|
Bah!
Firstly I am only one man and I've only the views of a single man. Be not concerned over my miniscule opinions. For my mind is only a small mind in a great big world of billions. What I say most likely does not matter one small bit to the likes of you all. So, try not get so upset when I commonly use my divine right to speak the intricate workings of my very limited and finite brain.
No no please, continue on thinking the logic of racism and same-sex marriage. By all means fantasize to all of your hearts' contents. You can disagree, argue, tell me you are gay, bisexual, seperation of church and state, etc, etc.
The fact of the matter is that you all will absolutely have the legal rights you seek for these kinds of same-sex life-partnerships. That is why it isn't a big deal and this issue is as good as dead shortly after the campaign.
However! You will not, shall not, nor will you ever as long as I am of voting capability hijack the word or steal its great modern symbolic value. "Marriage" is between a man and a woman. I believe this strongly. If you all want your rights then worry not, but you absolutely cannot have this word or its significance unless you freely and willfully proceed to enter into its great cultural history as most of the known world(both civilized and barbaric) does. There will be no slander of terms. You'll have your rights and we shall retain our principles.
Marriage is one of life's greatest challenges. It is an experience of love and hardship, sacrifice and grief, rewards unimaginable, and there is no greater solidifying purpose to my life than the committments I have made to my own wife.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted August 26, 2004 08:35 AM |
|
|
In these times of ages who gives a crap who marries who.
Many marriage is on the same sex & no one cares who they are.
It's all about the heart, not religion or any such.
I respect how you feel Consis,& you have a right to feel that way but the point of the matter is you cant change the way a person really feels.
George Bush might as well kill every gay person in America because there are too many who love the same sex.
Too bad thier is alot of haters who would kill a homosexual, just because it is not right for them & I known alot of those episodes.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted September 24, 2004 04:54 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 24 Sep 2004
|
The Time Has Come
Now it has come to it, the time for decision is upon me. The constitution of the state of Oregon will be amended as follows if passed:
 "It is the Policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as marriage."
This amendment to the Oregon state constitution comes from "Measure 36". All voting in favor will support the measure 36 and all voting against shall of course deny its process.
This is probably the only time I shall ever take to offer my decision up for debate on the internet with people whom I truly do not know. But because this vote is solely based on principle and you all are the only people I have ever discussed the matter with, I would like to try and discuss it further before making a final decision.
I want to talk more about the direction bort brought about. I am truly against same sexes carrying the title as everyone knows but in my heart, I would never want to be the obstacle for any person's own persuit of happiness. I believe the concepts laid down in the Declaration of Independence for the United States and I feel very strongly about the the right to every person's persuit to their own happiness. I believe this should never be taken away and to do so would mean totalitarianship.
I cannot thus far bring myself to yet except that voting in favor of my state's constitutional amendment will bring about the existence of a totalitarian approach to an otherwise civil right.
I would like to please ask bort, Peacemaker, Wiseman, Oldtimer, The_Gootch, and Shadowcaster to please help me better understand a vision I can be completely at peace with concerning my vote in this matter. I am fully aware that Wiseman is not american but I respect his opinions as though he were a fellow countryman.
Here is a small excerpt from a questionaire describing what some people who will be voting in favor believe about marriage:
"Marriage is more than an emotional, committed bond. It’s the enduring relationship of the two complementary parts of humanity who complete each other in their differences. This is why marriage provides good things for adults and children, which same-sex relationships, by definition, cannot provide."
The voting for my state will be taking place in late October. I won't think the less of anyone for not responding but you all should know that I offer this opportunity to illustrate the significance of our relationships.(be they internet or otherwise)
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted September 24, 2004 06:23 PM |
|
|
PJ Harvey - Me-Jane :
"Tarzan, I'm pleading, stop your snowing screaming!
You've got me many walls around here, but no ceiling
Oh, move it over Tarzan! Can't you see I'm bleeding?
Good lord you never stop!
Don't load it on me
Don't load it on me
Don't load it on me
Don't load it on me-Jane
Don't load it on me-Jane
Don't load it on me-Jane
Don't load it on me-Jane
Don't load it on me-Jane"
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted September 24, 2004 07:52 PM |
|
|
Well, Consis, I have offered up just about as much analysis on this issue as I possibly could through my posts in this and attendant threads.
In a nutshell, while I strongly hold to the ideal that all life-bond type unions should be accorded identical community legitimacy, I feel that given the strong public sentiments in this debate, this position is not as practical to achieve as the moderate alternative (compromise) of giving up the title "marriage in exchange for the creation and recognition of a socially, legally legitimized in sitution of "civil union." I believe that as an interim step, the formal establishiment of this institution, once in place for a period of time, will ease the recitent minds of individuals such as yourself, and demonstrate that recognizing social and legal equality of gay unions will have no impact whatsoever on the institution of marriage as it is currently recognized in society.
Thus, I believe this would be a step toward the ultimate goal of achieving complete equality, including in label (representing equal social conceptualization) between hetersexual and homosexual unions.
Unfortunately the proposed amendment as it is written does not address this issue at all. The amendment offers no concessions whatsoever. If you are asking me how I would vote, and if you are serious about your concerns for achieving constitutional equality, I would vote against it hands down, unless the amendment were appended to add language similar to the following:
There is hereby created and recognized the legal institution of "civil union," which institution shall apply to unions between two partners of the same sex, which shall give rise to, and to which shall attach, all the legal rights, protections and privileges legally associated with the institution of marriage.
Now I have some questions:
1) How much support is this amendment garnering in the constituency? In other words, how close is this race? (this is more a question of curiosity rather than a strategic consideration)
2) Do you have any information whether the congresspeople and their constituents who are in support of the amendment, are alternatively willing to support a civil union, with all the attendant civil rights and privileges accorded to those in heterosexual marriages, in exchange for your vote in favor of the amendment? If so, what percentage would support this alternative?
3) Has there been any dialogue in your congress about the relinquishment of the title "marriage" in exchange for the legal recognition of "civil union?"
If I were you, I would contact my local gay and lesbian association and see if they have any data at all on these considerations. I would also contact my congressperson by telephone or e-mail, and ask him or her if there is any chance of adding such a supplement to the amendment, and telling them you will vote for the amendment only on the condition such a supplement exists, otherwise, no go.
Some thoughts on the support quote you selected which apparently has been part of the rationalization for this amendment:
Quote:
"Marriage is more than an emotional, committed bond. It’s the enduring relationship of the two complementary parts of humanity who complete each other in their differences.
Yeah, right. If only. Is this why the hetersexual divorce rate in the United States is something like 60%?"
Quote:
This is why marriage provides good things for adults and children, which same-sex relationships, by definition, cannot provide."
There is simply no support for this conclusion in the previous sentence whence it allegedly draws its support. Every homosexual and hetersexual individual is a unique individual blend of the " complimentary parts of humanity." There are more and less androgynous blends and complimentary elements to the personalities of individuals comprising each couple in the universe. Homosexuality by its very nature tends to lend a different blend of the "complimentary aspects" of the individuals in question. In short, I think this statement is about the biggest pile of overgeneralized horse doo doo I've heard in this debate so far.
I hope I have answered your question.
P.S. -- Oh, yeah. BTW. The "pursuit of happiness" language actually comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Therefore, while being one of the principles upon which we based our break from that terrible tyrant the King of England,  we don't actually have it in our legally enforceable documents.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted October 11, 2004 01:35 AM |
|
|
I Finally Received My Voter's Pamphlet For Measure 36
Peacemaker asked:
Quote:
1) How much support is this amendment garnering in the constituency? In other words, how close is this race? (this is more a question of curiosity rather than a strategic consideration)
This is impossible to answer by any current means of technology. Even if I were "plugged in", there is still no way to know for certain until after the vote takes place.
Quote:
2) Do you have any information whether the congress people and their constituents who are in support of the amendment, are alternatively willing to support a civil union, with all the attendant civil rights and privileges accorded to those in heterosexual marriages, in exchange for your vote in favor of the amendment? If so, what percentage would support this alternative?
The answer to this is also impossible to know until the vote takes place. However, there is talk of not providing a clause for 'civil unions' for a couple of reasons. One reason is because anyone can easily sign over a 'power of attorney' to anyone else. This would give any person the legal right to make legal decisions for the person allowing the contract. Also, the opponents of this amendment aren't asking for a civil union. They only ask that they be afforded the marriage title and that if the measure passes, then this will lead to a violation of constitutional civil rights guaranteed at the federal level.
Quote:
3) Has there been any dialogue in your congress about the relinquishment of the title "marriage" in exchange for the legal recognition of "civil union?"
There has indeed been quite the heated dialogue, however as I previously stated, It almost seems like the opposition won't even consider the term "civil union" as an acceptable alternative.
Quote:
If I were you, I would contact my local gay and lesbian association and see if they have any data at all on these considerations. I would also contact my congressperson by telephone or e-mail, and ask him or her if there is any chance of adding such a supplement to the amendment, and telling them you will vote for the amendment only on the condition such a supplement exists, otherwise, no go.
I now have as much of the data as needed on this matter. It's all provided in my voter's pamphlet, which seeks informational arguments for both sides. Believe me I have pages and pages both for and against this amendment sitting right here in front of me.
I am ready to start discussing these arguments with anyone who is willing. The vote(for Oregon) will take place on November 2.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
gorman
Promising
Legendary Hero
Been around since before 2003
|
|
posted October 11, 2004 02:11 AM |
|
|
I'm sorry for being terribly off topic but I have read alot of this thread....and....something Khaelo posted caught my eye that I didn't know and just had to say....You're bi?!? And what's wrong w/gay ppl marrying other gay ppl? It's not as if they're marrying you consis! Might as well let them do what they want in life, you only live once afterall
____________
When all else fails... Take notes.... ALL the time... ESPECIALLY when playing D&D.... or Pokemon in my case
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
