Mates rights and Gay rights

[modest]

Hi Modest,

There are equitable ways to be equitable, maybe there are other alternatives?

 

No, there is only one equitable way to give equal rights to homosexuals. To make them equal. There is nothing equitable about your original post - it is bigoted and typical of the baseless rhetoric that does lead to violence against gays.

 

I once worked for a company that considered my immediate family did not include grandparents. Now I work for a company that grants bereavement leave if anybody in my family, including grandparents dies and also if anybody dies in the house I live in, related or otherwise. Sexuality doesn't even come into it.

 

I see, you work for a company that would allow you some time off if someone you live with dies.... so we don't need to give gays the right to marry. :ud: Are all of your thoughts this incomplete? If this is your idea of equal rights or some kind of compromise then perhaps the concept is too far outside your sphere of experience.

 

It is impossible to say "Sexuality doesn't even come into it" when homosexuals are banned from marriage and heterosexuals are not.

 

What are you trying to accomplish here? Your original post is harshly slanted against homosexuals and compares gay marriage to platonic social relationships between heterosexual people. It's hard to think you're serious about this because my 8-year-old nephew would understand the difference.

 

Your following posts seem to say that if we give equal rights to homosexuals there could be a violent scourge against gays so we shouldn't do it.

 

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were cleverly trying to advance your anti-homosexual agenda by inducing fear. It was a common tactic employed by those supporting segregation. But, far more likely is that you are trying to find some cover for your original comments. Trying to convince us that your desire to keep gays from marrying stems from a concern on your part that they might be hurt seems insincere at best.

 

Both your "points" are fatuous and demonstrate a serious underlying discrimination (either uninformed or intentional).

 

In any case, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. The underlying assumption made in the OP and in the title that there is some parallel between straight-platonic-friends and gay-marriage has been addressed for what it is: ridiculous, offensive, and uninformed.

 

-modest

[LaurieAG]

I have no idea what problem you're referring to! You seem to be making all sorts of wild assumptions about how "redneck Americans" will react to gay rights which not only don't have any justification, they don't make any sense at all!

 

Hi Buffy,

 

If you look up dictionary.com you will find that redneck comes up when you look up the Thesarus for Bigot. So you don't understand how bigots with access to guns might do something about Gay rights?

 

I don't have much confidence that the US can solve it's problems when people cannot even acknowledge what the problems are (before working out equitable solutions)?

[LaurieAG]

No, there is only one equitable way to give equal rights to homosexuals. To make them equal.

 

Hi Modest,

 

At least I am trying to work out a truely equitable situation by confronting the problems and not avoiding them.

 

So don't shoot the messenger.

[freeztar]

If you look up dictionary.com you will find that redneck comes up when you look up the Thesarus for Bigot.

 

Yeah, it's the listing right after LaurieAG.

 

So you don't understand how bigots with access to guns might do something about Gay rights?

 

I don't, pleas enlighten us.

I don't have much confidence that the US can solve it's problems when people cannot even acknowledge what the problems are (before working out equitable solutions)?

 

Everyone from the US who has posted in this thread has stated that the problem is that gays don't have equal rights.

 

Have you even ever been to the US, Laurie?

Have you ever lived in the SE USA for a significant period of time? I have, and I can tell you that the problems you forsee are not what's going on here. I know people who are gay AND rednecks. What do you think about that?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Only a non judeo-christian would ever approve of Gay and Marriage being connected.

Marriage is a (well supposed to be) sacred institution, a lifelong bond between a man and a woman (which is something these same bible thumpers should note, judging by divorce rates)...

I'm sorry but that is the way it is. Do I believe they should enjoy the same rights and privelages as a hetero couple? Sure... S#!=!!!! I just learned something!

 

A connection has been made!

 

Gays should be allowed to marry! If bible thumpers can spit on the institution of marriage (as far as bible thumpers tend to see it) by getting devorced... Why shouldn't gays be allowed to do the same?!? That's fair!

 

But then Best friends should be allowed these same rights not so much the marriage (unless they want to get married) part but the other benefits. Seeing as marriage is not always for life hetero or homo and most best friends are as close as or even closer than a married couple that's only fair too.

[LaurieAG]

I know people who are gay AND rednecks. What do you think about that?

 

Hi Freeztar,

 

DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER!!!

 

Please have a look at my last post on the Australia thread in Social Sciences.

[LaurieAG]

But then Best friends should be allowed these same rights not so much the marriage (unless they want to get married) part but the other benefits. Seeing as marriage is not always for life hetero or homo and most best friends are as close as or even closer than a married couple that's only fair too.

 

Hi DFINITLYDISTRUBD,

 

You make more sense than most of the replies so far.

[freeztar]

Hi Freeztar,

 

DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER!!!

 

Please have a look at my last post on the Australia thread in Social Sciences.

 

Yeah, I just posted over there before coming back to this thread. I couldn't believe that! How can that judge still be employed?!?!

 

As far as shooting the messenger, there's none of that going on. I'm simply shredding the message, the messenger can go in peace. ;)

[LaurieAG]

Yeah, I just posted over there before coming back to this thread. I couldn't believe that! How can that judge still be employed?!?!

 

Hi Freeztar,

 

It isn't technically the state judges problem, it's the politicians, more precisely the Australian PM and Cabinet, because state judges cannot sign UN Covenants and Treaties.

 

Once again the Public Prosecutor is suspended and made the meat in the sandwich, just like in the Haneef case where the prosecutor was suspended.

 

I saw the gross abuse of Queensland children happening 10 years ago and I can see the abuse (and much worse) of gays happening in the US as a result of people refusing to think the unthinkable, until it's too late and harm is suffered.

[freeztar]

and I can see the abuse (and much worse) of gays happening in the US as a result of people refusing to think the unthinkable, until it's too late and harm is suffered.

 

I just don't see it Laurie. ;)

 

With issues like abortion, certainly, and that is documented by all of the abortion clinic bombings over the years. But gay rights? As Buffy said, there was that one famous case but you'll be hard pressed to dig up any other examples.

 

Tomorrow I'll ask my gay friend if he knows of any abuse, or even prejudice, that he has witnessed or heard of and I'll report back with some insider info.

[LaurieAG]

I just don't see it Laurie. ;)

 

Hi Freeztar,

 

We usually don't see things before they're too late. I think it's a trait of modern human politics.

 

With issues like abortion, certainly, and that is documented by all of the abortion clinic bombings over the years. But gay rights? As Buffy said, there was that one famous case but you'll be hard pressed to dig up any other examples.

 

There was one famous US case in 2001, at look at what the politicians did (and are still doing).

 

Tomorrow I'll ask my gay friend if he knows of any abuse, or even prejudice, that he has witnessed or heard of and I'll report back with some insider info.

 

Unfortunately the gay community won't get much wind of anything like this happening because, knowing people, they'll do it behind their backs, just like it happened in 2001. And the perpetrators will probably get away with doing it because nobody is looking, just like in 2001.

[HydrogenBond]

I think it comes down to language. The term marriage has traditionally described the union of a man and women. The Gays needs to pick another word so they don't offend others. For example, it would be like someone deciding to use the "N-word", to describe a type of lifestyle. The very choice of that word would be very offensive to many, even if was used in the context of another set of people. This would be squashed by the sensitivity police. The word marriage is a loophole for political correctness. Even though the use of this word to describe a gay union is offensive to many people, this hurt is ignored. There are certain groups that are not covered under the political correctness wing. The word marriage is very important to many. It is sort of the M-word. No group should have the right to offend others, including the Gays offensive use of the word.

 

I have no problem with gays and lesbians having all the rights of a married couple. But their choice of a word should not be offensive to millions of people. This is the gays biggest mistake. Most people can accept the concept of gay unions, but they chose to do it in a verbally offensive way. The result is a backlash that prevents them from getting what they should get. Yet everyone blames the offended and not the verbal offenders.

[LaurieAG]

I have no problem with gays and lesbians having all the rights of a married couple. But their choice of a word should not be offensive to millions of people. This is the gays biggest mistake. Most people can accept the concept of gay unions, but they chose to do it in a verbally offensive way. The result is a backlash that prevents them from getting what they should get. Yet everyone blames the offended and not the verbal offenders.

 

Good Points HydrogenBond,

 

I just don't know why US politicians (who are predominantly Christian, or so they maintain) would do this and make a great hullabaloo about it at the same time, while almost everybody else says nothing.

 

BTW, there is already a register for friends in the US, the proposal is for another similar register for homosexual couples.

 

Hmm.

[Cedars]

I am kinda confused.

 

Laurie Are you saying equal rights for gays in legal marriages will increase attacks on gays? If not, what are you trying to say?

[freeztar]

I think it comes down to language. The term marriage has traditionally described the union of a man and women. The Gays needs to pick another word so they don't offend others. For example, it would be like someone deciding to use the "N-word", to describe a type of lifestyle. The very choice of that word would be very offensive to many, even if was used in the context of another set of people. This would be squashed by the sensitivity police. The word marriage is a loophole for political correctness. Even though the use of this word to describe a gay union is offensive to many people, this hurt is ignored. There are certain groups that are not covered under the political correctness wing. The word marriage is very important to many. It is sort of the M-word. No group should have the right to offend others, including the Gays offensive use of the word.

 

I have no problem with gays and lesbians having all the rights of a married couple. But their choice of a word should not be offensive to millions of people. This is the gays biggest mistake. Most people can accept the concept of gay unions, but they chose to do it in a verbally offensive way. The result is a backlash that prevents them from getting what they should get. Yet everyone blames the offended and not the verbal offenders.

 

You bring up a good point in that it's pretty much the word marriage that ruins things. My gay friend has a term that he uses (which I can't for the life of me recall). Apparently, the gay community in Atlanta (which is very large) uses this term and only seeks equal benefit under law, in most cases. Anyhow, here's a good article on the same thing:

Marriage is a Sacred Religious Sacrament: Gay Marriage Would Be a Sacrilege and Thus Must Be Banned

[LaurieAG]

I am kinda confused.

 

Laurie Are you saying equal rights for gays in legal marriages will increase attacks on gays? If not, what are you trying to say?

 

Hi Cedars,

 

If you read my earlier posts you will see that there are ways to introduce equality without discriminating against anybody.

 

Human nature is human nature.

[Cedars]

Hi Cedars,

 

If you read my earlier posts you will see that there are ways to introduce equality without discriminating against anybody.

 

Human nature is human nature.

 

Sometimes there is, sometimes there isnt.

 

Adoption in the US has been pointed out. As it is now in at least several states (and maybe all states) when a homosexual couple adopts, there is only one parent listed on the adoption papers. In cases of the ending of the relationship, there is no legal grounds for the homosexual partner to retain parental rights. There are no legal rights given during adoption for one of the people involved in this relationship.

 

We have also seen this via HIV and one partner being denied access to the hospitalized patient. Families who do not accept this relationship can and do get restraining orders on the partner. The rights granted to a married couple supersede legally the rights of the parents, siblings etc in such cases, and this applies fully to hetero couples regardless of what other family members think about their marriage. Think back on Terry Schivro and that battle over her feeding tube. The husbands claims were finally honored. If they would not have been married, he would have lost that fight.

 

This also prevents inter-racial couples from being barred via not having that piece of paper saying they are married, where if that inter-racial couple is not married, you bet the family can get restraining orders cuz legally that other person has no rights in the medical aspects of the patient. They are not legally next of kin.

 

I know of no other documentation that provides a person to assign legal next of kin status besides marriage.