Mates rights and Gay rights

[DougF]

I think this might shed some light on this discussion.

 

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

A personal essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup

"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary' date=' the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"

 

-Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum [/quote']

 

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

[modest]

 

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.

 

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

 

Yes freeztar, he brings up a good point that 'marriage' seems to be the word that sets some people off. But, he brings up a very, very, very bad point in comparing the M-word to the N-word. You cannot compare the gay community to the slave-oppressing white community like that.

 

Gays offend people with the use of the M-word the same way whites offend people with the N-word??? No - that's down-right schizophrenic. Just managing to degrade 2 groups of people with that comparison. No?

 

Either I've had a seizure and lost my mind or something weird is happening in this forum. Half the people here seem to be comparing 'not having equal rights' to other things that are not in any way the same. HydrogenBond has compared it to a white person using the N-word (that seems insane to me). LaurieAG is comparing it with a group of straight friends not sharing medical and death benefits the way a married couple does (that seems almost as insane).

 

Is there anyone else who sees this? Or, is it just me?

 

-modest

[modest]

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.

 

Cedars, I agree with most everything you said but am confused a bit by the last thing above. Why can't interracial couples marry? Or, are you saying they may not because of pressure from racist family members?

 

-modest

[Cedars]

Cedars, I agree with most everything you said but am confused a bit by the last thing above. Why can't interracial couples marry? Or, are you saying they may not because of pressure from racist family members?

 

-modest

 

This is why I shouldnt post after a certain time at night...

 

There was a time in the USA where certain states (maybe all of them for a while) did not recognize inter-racial marriage. As things changed some states did allow this and others resisted recognizing the 'marriage license' of other states as being valid in there own (there was an earlier reference to a gay marriage couple trying to divorce in a state that doesnt recognize this). The similarity between the obstacles some inter-racial couples faced and what is going on with homosexual commitments is almost a mirror.

 

Yes inter-racial couples can marry in every state in the USA now. This was not always so. But without that legal document, an inter-racial couple who faces family members who do not agree with the choice of partner can put up obstacles to the partner in the example such as medical decisions as I posted. The rights granted to a couple with a marriage license do protect partners from such interferences.

 

I hope that helps clear up what I was trying to say.

 

As far as the word 'marriage' and people resisting this licensure (and thats what it is) I say Too Bad. They will just have to accept that while they might not like the term marriage being applied equally to homosexual couples as it is to hetero couples, their resistance to the evolution of the term marriage is no different than the resistance of some people to inter-racial marriages, and the same resistance as when daughters could refuse to marry a man that her father chose for her.

[modest]

I hope that helps clear up what I was trying to say.

 

Oh, yes - very good. Quite right.

 

-modest

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

An inter-racial marriage is by no means the same thing as a same sex marriage!

 

You brought up laurie's use of the M and N word as being two completely different things and yet here you are doing exactly the same thing.

 

A heterosexual marriage between two ethnicities does not trample the beliefs of Christians same sex marriages do.

 

And yes I know other faiths have weddings too and their belies may allow for same sex marriages...and yes there are millions of christians and Jewish persons that take offense.

 

[43]) Civil unions are a separate form of legal union open to couples of the same sex, often carrying the same entailments as opposite-sex marriage under a different name. < wilkpedia-marriage]

 

How about that a way for gays to have the same rights without trampling the beliefs of others.

[Cedars]

An inter-racial marriage is by no means the same thing as a same sex marriage!

 

A heterosexual marriage between two ethnicities does not trample the beliefs of Christians same sex marriages do.

 

Depends on the christian denomination.

 

Bob Jones University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Separation of church and state ring any bells with you?

 

A marriage license is issued by the state and while various religious persons are allowed to verify the completion of the document, there are methods for those who do not have these religious tendencies to fulfill the requirements of the state to meet the processing requirements. Whether I am affirmed as a legally married couple by a preacher or a judge, the rights I am granted by this are equal under the law. Your wiki definition of that civil union 'often' grant these same entitlements. And a judge who does not hold the opinion that the civil union does not allow medical decisions for a life partner. If it doesnt have the same weight as a marriage license, its the same thing as 'equal but separate' and we all know how that was applied for some people in some states.

 

And yes I know other faiths have weddings too and their belies may allow for same sex marriages...and yes there are millions of christians and Jewish persons that take offense.

 

How about that a way for gays to have the same rights without trampling the beliefs of others.

 

"...for 16 years I've been in a marriage that a group of nine "activist judges," led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, legalized in 1967. They did so by striking down the laws of 16 states, mostly in the South, that had considered marriages such as ours illegal, immoral and ungodly."

 

"In 1948, when California became the first state to strike down a ban on interracial marriage, nine out of 10 Americans opposed such unions."

 

USATODAY.com - Gays face same battle interracial couples fought

 

How does allowing gay marriage trample the rights of anyone? Gay marriage does not demand any heterosexual to change their lifestyle, their belief, or their coupling behaviors, just like legalizing inter-racial marriage does not demand that I marry someone of another race, it only gives me the option to do so.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

How does allowing gay marriage trample the rights of anyone?

You'll kindly note that I said beliefs. Not rights.

Again there is a difference.

 

For a good number of christians and Jews, marriage being associated with homosexuality is about as acceptable as granting neo-nazis the right to vandalise churches and synigogs.

 

Also the race thing and again it's not the same thing. As much as you apparently would like to believe it is it isn't... apples and oranges friend apples and oranges. It's about the same as saying there's no difference between nuclear power plant and an atomic bomb.

 

Personally I really don't give a f##k...but I do find it interesting to discuss this type of subject.

 

How long do you think this would have even remained an issue if the M word never came up? My guess is not very long.

 

Time and time again discussing this with family, friends, co-workers and their only issue with this whole mess is the use of the M word...Not that they would be seen as spouses in the eyes of the law.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Incidently on the race note...I'm a nifty blend of vietnamese, native american, african, and german.

LOTS of diversity in my gene pool!

[LaurieAG]

Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint

 

Hi DougF,

 

The state of Victoria (Aust.) has recently adjusted their Invitro-Fertilisation program so that lesbian couples can apply with the trade off that no same sex couples can adopt children.

 

I think the problem faced by all the current proposals is using the grouping of Homosexuals vs all others, especially when the 'others' can be broken down into distinct groups based on physiological instead of ephemeral criteria.

[LaurieAG]

LaurieAG is comparing it with a group of straight friends not sharing medical and death benefits the way a married couple does (that seems almost as insane).

 

Hi Modest,

 

It was a (corporate) example of a solution that is equitable for all regardless of sexual orientation.

 

I don't know about you but I don't find it insane that a very large US Multinational has a very professional attitude to discrimination.

 

In fact, US politicians could learn a lot about interracting with the world by examining how large successful companies (particularly in the hospitality industry i.e. people people), with operations in many different countries, treat their employees wide diversity of cultural and religious differences to provide equitable and professional global standards.

[Cedars]

You'll kindly note that I said beliefs. Not rights.

Again there is a difference.

 

For a good number of christians and Jews, marriage being associated with homosexuality is about as acceptable as granting neo-nazis the right to vandalise churches and synigogs.

 

Believe whatever you want, but when you try to inflict that belief on those around you is when rights get trampled.

 

You avoid the context to spew out garbage such as the nazis attacking churches and temples, but the law is applied equally. Wiccans cant vandalize catholic churches, Republican youth cant vandalize wiccan churches. The law is applied equally. I am sure you not implying that by allowing gay marriage, gay couples are going to begin attacking anyone cuz now they got a right? Talk about apples and oranges.... :D

 

Also the race thing and again it's not the same thing. As much as you apparently would like to believe it is it isn't... apples and oranges friend apples and oranges. It's about the same as saying there's no difference between nuclear power plant and an atomic bomb.

 

It is the same thing. Its two human beings being denied by law the ability to couple up and declare the other human being as their next of kin and all the rights and responsiblities that come with that commitment. Its the other rights that are denied to homosexual couples that is ignored and are a direct result of the fact they cannot obtain equal status with their chosen partner via a marriage certificate.

 

 

How long do you think this would have even remained an issue if the M word never came up? My guess is not very long.

 

Time and time again discussing this with family, friends, co-workers and their only issue with this whole mess is the use of the M word...Not that they would be seen as spouses in the eyes of the law.

 

If marriage did not allow certain rights to the couple that are denied to those who do not carry that 'marriage license', it wouldnt be an issue for homosexual couples either. Too bad for those who cringe over the word marriage and how its applied. Allowing marriage for homosexual couples does not deprive heterosexuals of any of those privileges.

[LaurieAG]

Talk about apples and oranges.... :)

 

Hi Cedars,

 

Strictly speaking, in the physiological/ephemeral sense, the difference is between life/lifestyle. One has been going on for millions (even billions if you like) of years while the other goes on from 1 to 120 years max.

 

Its the other rights that are denied to homosexual couples that is ignored and are a direct result of the fact they cannot obtain equal status with their chosen partner via a marriage certificate.

 

Lets look at the rights in question.

 

Benefits

Reduced taxation rate for married couples (Australia)

 

Disadvantages

Reduced unemployment benefits for couples (even defacto hetero couples)

Reduced pension benefits for couples (even defacto hetero couples)

 

None of the childcare rights are infringed because there is no difference between couple or individual payments for children, apart from child maintenence after separation by one of the parties (i.e. its the child not the couple/individual who have the rights).

 

Separation Disadvantages

Child support payments for 1 party (predominantly the male)

 

Are there any other rights to be considered?

[Cedars]

Hi Cedars,

 

Strictly speaking, in the physiological/ephemeral sense, the difference is between life/lifestyle. One has been going on for millions (even billions if you like) of years while the other goes on from 1 to 120 years max.

 

I am not sure where you intend to go with this, could you clarify?

 

Lets look at the rights in question.

 

Benefits

Reduced taxation rate for married couples (Australia)

 

Disadvantages

Reduced unemployment benefits for couples (even defacto hetero couples)

Reduced pension benefits for couples (even defacto hetero couples)

 

None of the childcare rights are infringed because there is no difference between couple or individual payments for children, apart from child maintenence after separation by one of the parties (i.e. its the child not the couple/individual who have the rights).

 

Separation Disadvantages

Child support payments for 1 party (predominantly the male)

 

Are there any other rights to be considered?

 

All of the next of kin rights. I have pointed out in other posts how families can and do ban the chosen partner from medical decisions all the way to denying them entry into the relatives room when end of life decisions are being made. Its not just HIV, its during car accidents and all of the other things that happen unexpectedly to people. Its contested wills. Its companionship value that is assigned to a chosen mate that is legally upheld by the courts when this piece of paper can be entered into evidence. It is proof that heterosexual couples have the option to present that is denied to homosexual couples simply based on the xx+xy=1 where xx+xx or xy+xy=0.

 

Earlier you posted lesbian couples now have the right to Invitro. I have a question regarding that. Was this applied to single persons across the board and now lesbian couples have that right or was it only lesbian couples were denied this and single women could regardless of marital status/coupling? And do you know if both lesbians are listed on the birth cert as parents or only the mother? This does make a HUGE difference in the USA on issues such as death of the listed parent and families denying the partner guardianship/visitation regardless of wills to try to prevent such issues later because of personal bias held by a judge in the matter that can become the decision factor.

 

The argument against allowing equality for homosexual marriage is simply based on the majorities perception of right/wrong based on their own genetic drive. This does not negate the fact that there is most likely a genetic basis for the existance of homosexual drives in a minority of people, no more than it negates the fact there are some people who are sexually attracted to various races beyond their own. The majority of people do not seem to have this inter-racial drive as shown by the numbers of inter racial marriges (approx 5%) though I wouldnt speculate at this point on whether its a genetic drive or not. However I can say this.... There is no condition (other than EXTREME desperation, which I have not experienced yet) where you will find me with a red head. Or an albino. I do not find these variations appealing on a sexual level. Never have. But I do not think red heads or albinos should be denied the ability to marry a partner who will have them. Its my bias on partner choice and thats the way it is.

 

Another bias I have. Obese people. I cannot imagine being sexually attracted to someone in an obese condition. I dont understand the "chubby chasers". But I am not in a position to deny obese persons the right of marriage.

 

And that is what this whole issue boils down to. A personal bias (whether genetic or not) that is depriving some people an option that has true and valuable weight in matters of law and rights for an individual/couple.

[modest]

Are there any other rights to be considered?

 

You know there are. See my very first post in this thread again.

 

-modest

[Zythryn]

Strictly speaking, in the physiological/ephemeral sense, the difference is between life/lifestyle. One has been going on for millions (even billions if you like) of years while the other goes on from 1 to 120 years max.

 

Are you trying to say hetersexual marraige has been going on for millions (or billions even) of years and homosexual marraige for between 1 and 120 years?

 

I think you are sadly mistaken on both counts if that is the case. Our species hasn't been around for millions of years (much less billions) and homosexuality has been around in our species as well as others for a very very long time.

[HydrogenBond]

From a natural point of view, homosexuality is designed, by default, not to forward its genes as part of evolution. It is self regulating, keeping its genes out of the forward progress. It does not fall under the complete definition of natural genetic selection, except as a short term phenomena. This is not to say gay and lesbians can't be at the top of natural selection at any point in time, just they unconsciously defy the Darwinian principles of natural selection and chose a lifestyle that does not help nature forward even very progressive genes. In that sense, it is analogous to chaos in the natural order. Chaos is part of the natural genetic progression. But in this case, the chaos, itself, does not help genes to evolve. It is out of the loop.

 

With respect to a moral point of view, we sort of cherry pick from the Christian philosophy when it comes to homosexuals. We can accept the principles of the maternal loving acceptance, seeing the differences, as part of the diversity of human nature. But we exclude the ancient marriage principle that seek to maintain the genetic evolutionary order, without increasing chaos with little impact on the forward genetic progress.