|
On August 05 2010 07:24 L wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:19 TOloseGT wrote:
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group. How don't they? There's social utility in being able to kill pre-birth children, which is the only reason its tolerable. The question in the current instance then because whether or not restricting marriage to heterosexual couples has a social utility, which is quite debatable from both sides.
Abortion is more complex because, depending on your viewpoint, there may be substantial negative externalities involved. Gay marriage is a 'leaving money on the table' issue, there's no reasonable benefit but the soothing of bigots to banning it.
|
Homosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuals get the right to obtain the legal status of marriage in California getting all the befits that come along with that.
Homosexuals do not.
So why do heterosexuals get those benefits and homosexuals do not? Because they can obtain offspring, homosexuals can do that to although it would require a uterus or sperm from a 3rd party it's not different from what heterosexuals have to do to obtain heirs.
That's how i see it.
|
On August 05 2010 07:28 RivetHead wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:15 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 07:08 D10 wrote:On August 05 2010 06:57 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:54 bearbuddy wrote:
Supporting Prop 8 is supporting the passage of laws the infringe upon people rights. This is not the same as personal believe in traditional marriage. In all fairness, most people I've seen supporting Prop 8 don't believe that homosexuals have a "right" to marry in the first place and until fairly recently, they really didn't so far as our federal and state governments were concerned... So in their opinion, they're not infringing on people's rights at all since they don't acknowledge the existence of those rights in the first place. This seems familiar ... ![[image loading]](http://cdn.newsone.com/files/2009/06/slaves_in_chains.jpg) And you wanna know why ? because the past is not a succesfull model for the future. In reality, refusal to recognize the rights of homosexuals to marry is no more or less arbitrary than refusing to recognize the rights of a fetus to live. The fact is most laws in this country and across the globe are completely arbitrary... Why flame one side when you're equally guilty? Let it play out in the courts and in Congress, express your opinion, go out and vote, and leave it at that. Insults get you nowhere and it doesn't further your cause at all. fetus's don't vote and get married, hell they aren't even humans yet. They don't have a birth certificate, citizenship rights, a social security card, etc. Gay's don't gestate inside of people involuntarily for a period of time. It really is just fallacious baiting to bring up abortion issues in a civil rights discussion.
Yup abortion is about when is the embryo human enough to be considered murder vs rights of people who we see as people and as citizens. Quite a different argument.
|
On August 05 2010 07:29 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:24 L wrote:On August 05 2010 07:19 TOloseGT wrote:
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group. How don't they? There's social utility in being able to kill pre-birth children, which is the only reason its tolerable. The question in the current instance then because whether or not restricting marriage to heterosexual couples has a social utility, which is quite debatable from both sides. Abortion is more complex because there are substantial negative externalities involved. Gay marriage is a 'leaving money on the table' issue, there's no reasonable benefit but the soothing of bigots to banning it.
If you think there's no reasonable benefit, you should probably look into theories on social capital, traditions and see how they tie into our method of self identifying. Then make the link from those into any self progression or satisfaction model, like Maslow's.
But claiming everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot is a pretty good way to not even bother addressing the issue. Then again, I don't really expect more out of social debates.
Yup abortion is about when is the embryo human enough to be considered murder vs rights of people who we see as people and as citizens. Quite a different argument. No, that's how Roe v Wade framed the issue, but its quite the terrible case from a legal standpoint. Far too influenced by social concerns instead of creating good law. "human enough" is a pretty cute term, though.
|
On August 05 2010 07:32 semantics wrote:
Homosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuals get the right to obtain the legal status of marriage in California getting all the befits that come along with that.
Homosexuals do not.
So why do heterosexuals get those benefits and homosexuals do not? Because they can obtain offspring, homosexuals can do that to although it would require a uterus or sperm from a 3rd party it's not different from what heterosexuals have to do to obtain heirs.
That's how i see it.
That statement is 100% false. Homosexuals can enter civil unions that gain 100% of the benefits a married couple gets.
The fight is about the legal status and the title "marriage," nothing more.
|
On August 05 2010 07:24 L wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:19 TOloseGT wrote:
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group. How don't they? There's social utility in being able to kill pre-birth children, which is the only reason its tolerable. The question in the current instance then because whether or not restricting marriage to heterosexual couples has a social utility, which is quite debatable from both sides.
I don't see how enforcing pregnancy onto a woman is any more tolerable.
And I doubt the majority of the anti-gay marriage group cares about the utility of marriage. More likely than not they're mired in close-minded dogma.
|
On August 05 2010 07:36 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:32 semantics wrote:
Homosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuals get the right to obtain the legal status of marriage in California getting all the befits that come along with that.
Homosexuals do not.
So why do heterosexuals get those benefits and homosexuals do not? Because they can obtain offspring, homosexuals can do that to although it would require a uterus or sperm from a 3rd party it's not different from what heterosexuals have to do to obtain heirs.
That's how i see it. That statement is 100% false. Homosexuals can enter civil unions that gain 100% of the benefits a married couple gets. The fight is about the legal status and the title "marriage," nothing more.
It's not 100% there are still somethings in which it does not allow or gives extra freedoms to there is a list somewhere but frankly it's not recognized instantly by people and separate is not equal. They are not the same thing and thus why the difference.
Also i think in California only homosexuals can apply for a civil union again why do you need to separate the two if you are trying to give the same rights to people. Separate is not equal. I'm also a fan of the argument that the word marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples and civil union for homosexual couples as segregation and along with is social engineering for developing a 2nd class social status and thus even if they were 100% the same which they are not it would still be discrimination in my book.
|
On August 05 2010 07:37 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:24 L wrote:On August 05 2010 07:19 TOloseGT wrote:
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group. How don't they? There's social utility in being able to kill pre-birth children, which is the only reason its tolerable. The question in the current instance then because whether or not restricting marriage to heterosexual couples has a social utility, which is quite debatable from both sides. I don't see how enforcing pregnancy onto a woman is any more tolerable. And I doubt the majority of the anti-gay marriage group cares about the utility of marriage. More likely than not they're mired in close-minded dogma.
Its not about tolerance. Its about social utility. You want the ability to terminate pregnancies regardless of the fact that you're killing a human life. Cool, I have no issue with that. I'd just prefer that people drop the 18th century vitalism and stop pretending they're not actually terminating a life for their convenience.
In the current case, pretending that everyone who doesn't agree with you is mired in closed minded dogma is ironically close minded, don't you think? Basically this last page has been a fantastic example of how two sides of a discussion can refuse even starting to talk with each other in favor of sitting in their respective ideological bubbles and labeling arguments with derogatory titles without addressing their content.
|
On August 05 2010 07:32 semantics wrote:
Homosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuals get the right to obtain the legal status of marriage in California getting all the befits that come along with that.
Homosexuals do not.
So why do heterosexuals get those benefits and homosexuals do not? Because they can obtain offspring, homosexuals can do that to although it would require a uterus or sperm from a 3rd party it's not different from what heterosexuals have to do to obtain heirs.
That's how i see it.
yes..i guess heterosexual couples who cannot have children should also not be granted the right to marriage
|
On August 05 2010 07:36 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:32 semantics wrote:
Homosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuals get the right to obtain the legal status of marriage in California getting all the befits that come along with that.
Homosexuals do not.
So why do heterosexuals get those benefits and homosexuals do not? Because they can obtain offspring, homosexuals can do that to although it would require a uterus or sperm from a 3rd party it's not different from what heterosexuals have to do to obtain heirs.
That's how i see it. That statement is 100% false. Homosexuals can enter civil unions that gain 100% of the benefits a married couple gets. The fight is about the legal status and the title "marriage," nothing more.
The decision issued today actually addresses that argument specifically.
The evidence shows that domestic partnerships do not
fulfill California’s due process obligation to plaintiffs for two
reasons. First, domestic partnerships are distinct from marriage
and do not provide the same social meaning as marriage. FF 53-54.
United States District Court
Second, domestic partnerships were created specifically so that
California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while
explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples. Id, Cal Fam
Code § 297 (Gov Davis 2001 signing statement: “In California, a
legal marriage is between a man and a woman. * * * This [domestic
partnership] legislation does nothing to contradict or undermine
the definition of a legal marriage.”).
The evidence at trial shows that domestic partnerships
exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriages. FF
53-54. A domestic partnership is not a marriage; while domestic
partnerships offer same-sex couples almost all of the rights and
responsibilities associated with marriage, the evidence shows that
the withholding of the designation “marriage” significantly
disadvantages plaintiffs. FF 52-54. The record reflects that
marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic
partnership. FF 52. California does not meet its due process
obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a
substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to samesex
couples.
Also, it seems that the legal defenders of Proposition 8 were woefully under prepared as far as evidence and expert witnesses. They only had two expert witnesses that testified, and neither was deemed an expert on the subject at hand.
|
On August 05 2010 07:35 L wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:29 UniversalSnip wrote:On August 05 2010 07:24 L wrote:On August 05 2010 07:19 TOloseGT wrote:
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group. How don't they? There's social utility in being able to kill pre-birth children, which is the only reason its tolerable. The question in the current instance then because whether or not restricting marriage to heterosexual couples has a social utility, which is quite debatable from both sides. Abortion is more complex because there are substantial negative externalities involved. Gay marriage is a 'leaving money on the table' issue, there's no reasonable benefit but the soothing of bigots to banning it. If you think there's no reasonable benefit, you should probably look into theories on social capital, traditions and see how they tie into our method of self identifying. Then make the link from those into any self progression or satisfaction model, like Maslow's. But claiming everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot is a pretty good way to not even bother addressing the issue. Then again, I don't really expect more out of social debates.
Making people feel nice about their dislike for minorities is not high on my list of legislative priorities. What we're disagreeing on is the meaning of 'reasonable', a blanket term which to me includes the requirement the gains be substantial. The social cohesion created by denying civil rights is a nebulous benefit... to put it politely.
|
On August 05 2010 07:36 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:32 semantics wrote:
Homosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuals get the right to obtain the legal status of marriage in California getting all the befits that come along with that.
Homosexuals do not.
So why do heterosexuals get those benefits and homosexuals do not? Because they can obtain offspring, homosexuals can do that to although it would require a uterus or sperm from a 3rd party it's not different from what heterosexuals have to do to obtain heirs.
That's how i see it. That statement is 100% false. Homosexuals can enter civil unions that gain 100% of the benefits a married couple gets. The fight is about the legal status and the title "marriage," nothing more.
Not really.
Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
|
On August 05 2010 07:10 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:02 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:59 UniversalSnip wrote:
That argument is junk. to put it bluntly, if you can't agree that segregation was a bad thing, you have no common ground with anyone else in this thread, which means you can't really have a discussion. So you might as well stop talking to yourself. I personally believe it was bad, but I believe our overall belief of what's "good" or "bad" evolves with time and the change of society. If you are going to argue that there is some absolutely objective reason as to why segregation is bad other than the fact that our values and world view have simply evolved over time, I think you would have trouble finding ground to stand on. That's all I'm saying. In other words, we shouldn't say segregation is bad because the universe says it's bad, we should say it's bad because it's bad, even though sometimes we are wrong about what's bad. Well no shit. What bearing does that have on what I said? Your relativism is totally half-assed, on the one hand you're like "well ok fine segregation is bad" but on the other hand you're like "but really bad is just a MADE UP CONCEPT MAN." As if that has practical implications beyond 'don't be an ironclad idiot fundamentalist.'
No, I'm saying that segregation wasn't "bad". It only became "bad" when we started believing it was bad just like the idea of a 30 year old taking a 10 year old bride wasn't "bad" until we began to believe that it was bad (at least in the USA). My personal beliefs are based on my own moral values, but those moral values in turn were shaped by the society and world I was raised in. I believe it's bad because of modern day values that I was taught, but that doesn't make it absolutely bad. We have a tendency to look back on history under the impression of what's considered "right" today, but what's "right" today may not be what's "right" tomorrow or 100 years from now. Given the fact that what's considered "right" is subject to change from person to person or era to era and given the fact that the concept of "right" doesn't exist outside of the human concept of it, why do you reject the idea that someone else's opinion might be just as valid as yours and that the validity of that opinion may be a matter of perspective rather than absolute truth?
A large part of why this nation is in a state of civil war (not physically, of course) is because we refuse to put ourselves in the shoes of others for a second and try to come to a compromise in our beliefs. Be it on the issue of illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. we simply refuse to enter any real dialogue. Instead we sit there lecturing the other party with hands over our ears and throw insults and attacks back and forth accusing each other of being "un-American" (seems to be the new fad) or trying to destroy this nation. Both sides are equally guilty of this and if we are to make any progress as a society, I believe it needs to stop.
Whether we like it or not and whether we agree with it or not, we live in a democratic nation. The premise of our government is that it was created "for the people, by the people", but we often forget that it's the ruling ideology of the day that decides who we acknowledge as the "people" for whom this government was created. We can talk all day about how the Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but that protection in reality only exists by the consent of the majority as do the "god-given rights" that we're granted. But it's important to always understand that these rights aren't really "god-given" at all, but exist only because we agree they do. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren't recognized or acknowledged universally nor are they somehow an intrinsic part of our existence.
I believe our nation is at a tipping point right now. Society and values are beginning to change once again much like it did during the Civil Rights movements of the past. As a nation, we're beginning to question long held beliefs and traditions and the younger generations are adopting a new view of the world. I feel the real evolution can happen, but it's not going to be furthered by the type of hostility that has been present in this thread and throughout this country. Hostility hardens hearts and closes ears. It's when we can approach the opposing side with understanding and compassion that we can even begin to move forward. But the type of understanding and compassion that will lead to productive dialogue begins with mutual respect. Much of our problems stem from this lack of respect for each other.
My intent is really not to argue my own political opinions on the matter, but rather try to get people to look into themselves and question whether the way they are arguing actually benefits their own cause at all. Failing to look at ourselves and realize our own faults or find some humility, this battle will only continue and spread across to every new issue, big or small, until it's eventually forcibly settled by a "hostile takeover" when one side simply becomes too small to measurably impact government despite their vehement opposition. If that's the road you want to go down, by all means, continue to accuse people of being stupid, un-American, and bigoted.
|
On August 05 2010 07:44 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:36 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 05 2010 07:32 semantics wrote:
Homosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuals get the right to obtain the legal status of marriage in California getting all the befits that come along with that.
Homosexuals do not.
So why do heterosexuals get those benefits and homosexuals do not? Because they can obtain offspring, homosexuals can do that to although it would require a uterus or sperm from a 3rd party it's not different from what heterosexuals have to do to obtain heirs.
That's how i see it. That statement is 100% false. Homosexuals can enter civil unions that gain 100% of the benefits a married couple gets. The fight is about the legal status and the title "marriage," nothing more. Not really. Show nested quote +Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
Woot someone doing my work for me :D
Anyways this is the point it's not equal; and even if it was, one can argue and i would side with that argument that the distinction between the usage of those two terms even if they described a contract in which those people would obtain exactly the same rights.
The fact that marriage is only for heterosexuals and civil unions/domestic partners? are only for homosexual couples on that basis alone i would call that on as being state sponsored creation of a 2nd class, hell even if the 2nd class was heterosexuals which frankly in some places it could be on that ground alone, separate is not equal and if i recall correctly the government is not allowed to sponsor discrimination.
|
Not really. Thousands of dollars of legal fees? its literally a stock contract that you pay like 60$ to get registered. You can find power of attorney forms online for your state at no cost :/.
What a joke.
|
Best Solution: Remove the term "Marriage" from all government text whatsoever, civil union should be the phrase used. Gay people can enter civil unions as can straight, but marriage is a strictly religious fare. If your church says you can be married and you're gay, so be it! If your church says you can't....too bad! But you can still get a civil union.
Everyone is happy!
|
On August 05 2010 07:52 L wrote: Thousands of dollars of legal fees? its literally a stock contract that you pay like 60$ to get registered. You can find power of attorney forms online for your state at no cost :/. What a joke.
I'm not going to argue with you about something this stupid.
You can ignore what I said if you want. The biggest issue isn't the varying cost in legal fees. Civil unions not being recognized outside of the state, on the federal level is a bigger issue.
If marriage and civil unions were actually the same thing, then I would tell gays to suck it up and quit fighting over a stupid christian word anyway. However, they are not.
|
On August 05 2010 07:57 sith wrote:
Best Solution: Remove the term "Marriage" from all government text whatsoever, civil union should be the phrase used. Gay people can enter civil unions as can straight, but marriage is a strictly religious fare. If your church says you can be married and you're gay, so be it! If your church says you can't....too bad! But you can still get a civil union.
Everyone is happy!
I doubt this would appease everyone. I imagine a whole lot of Prop 8 supporters arguing about the government violating the sanctity of the institution by renaming it and many of them would still argue against homosexual unions on the basis that they don't feel that the government should support unions that cannot result in pregnancy. Of course, these arguments have their own pitfalls, but it doesn't stop people from arguing them...
Unfortunately, for many people, they find it impossible to separate religion from state... If they could, this might be an amicable solution.
|
On August 05 2010 07:57 sith wrote:
Best Solution: Remove the term "Marriage" from all government text whatsoever, civil union should be the phrase used. Gay people can enter civil unions as can straight, but marriage is a strictly religious fare. If your church says you can be married and you're gay, so be it! If your church says you can't....too bad! But you can still get a civil union.
Everyone is happy!
Interesting proposal frankly that would work but i don't see this working because marriage is not a state given right although particulars are handed down by the state i think the Federal government gives certain tax breaks to those in married status. So although one state could say no more marriage only civial unions for all official on the books, when you do your taxes you'll be even more confused then ever.
|
On August 05 2010 07:41 L wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:37 TOloseGT wrote:On August 05 2010 07:24 L wrote:On August 05 2010 07:19 TOloseGT wrote:
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group. How don't they? There's social utility in being able to kill pre-birth children, which is the only reason its tolerable. The question in the current instance then because whether or not restricting marriage to heterosexual couples has a social utility, which is quite debatable from both sides. I don't see how enforcing pregnancy onto a woman is any more tolerable. And I doubt the majority of the anti-gay marriage group cares about the utility of marriage. More likely than not they're mired in close-minded dogma. Its not about tolerance. Its about social utility. You want the ability to terminate pregnancies regardless of the fact that you're killing a human life. Cool, I have no issue with that. I'd just prefer that people drop the 18th century vitalism and stop pretending they're not actually terminating a life for their convenience. In the current case, pretending that everyone who doesn't agree with you is mired in closed minded dogma is ironically close minded, don't you think? Basically this last page has been a fantastic example of how two sides of a discussion can refuse even starting to talk with each other in favor of sitting in their respective ideological bubbles and labeling arguments with derogatory titles without addressing their content.
It's only close-minded if you think the two groups are equal in their beliefs, which I do not. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that opinion is right.
Anyways, you mentioned tolerable, which I presumed to mean that you think everyone who is for pro-choice only considers social utility, which I find preposterous. Just like we can't control what happens in a person's private property, we also should have no say in what a woman can or can't do to her body and all things within, including that fetus. If it's about "killing a life", you're also placing an arbitrary limit to what constitutes life. What about a sperm? Isn't that potential pre-birthed human if mated with an egg? Would ejaculation into the toilet bowl count as killing a life?
If it's killing a life, any life, then why aren't there more outrages to people plucking leaves off trees or stampeding over long grass?
I believe that yes, certain detrimental aspects of religion have been ingrained into too many American voters. They're voting based on propaganda and outdated text, and they're turning simple things like gay marriage into a big deal. Have you tried talking to the average voter out there? It's asinine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
