|
On August 05 2010 07:28 RivetHead wrote:
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.
The abortion debate is about defining an arbitrary point at which we decide the fetus is a human being and is given the "right to life" afforded by our Constitution. Abortion is an issue because of exactly what you just said: "hell they aren't even humans yet." Much like you refuse to recognize the fetus as human (and subsequently having the right to life), Prop 8 supporters don't recognize homosexual unions (and subsequently having the right to marry). Both are arbitrary issues of recognition and acknowledgement just like many other issues such as age of consent. Though the actual subject matter is vastly different, the conflicts themselves are actually quite similar. And I don't believe I was baiting at all. I was merely using another hot button issue as an example of the same line of thinking that is at the heart of many of these problems and attempting to show how it extends to both sides, liberal and conservative.
|
Apples and Oranges.....
God doesnt waste anything, a dead fetus's soul will go to back to the front of the queue, his mother might get a little karma but its nothing she cant pay off raising her children in a decent way later.
|
On August 05 2010 08:06 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:41 L wrote: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.
Just a note, an opinion is a subset of beliefs, consisting of beliefs that cannot currently be objectively verified. So there is no such thing as a right opinion, merely a probably or improbably correct one.
|
On August 05 2010 08:13 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:28 RivetHead wrote:
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. The abortion debate is about defining an arbitrary point at which we decide the fetus is a human being and is given the "right to life" afforded by our Constitution. Abortion is an issue because of exactly what you just said: "hell they aren't even humans yet." Much like you refuse to recognize the fetus as human (and subsequently having the right to life), Prop 8 supporters don't recognize homosexual unions (and subsequently having the right to marry). Both are arbitrary issues of recognition and acknowledgement just like many other issues such as age of consent. Though the actual subject matter is vastly different, the conflicts themselves are actually quite similar. And I don't believe I was baiting at all. I was merely using another hot button issue as an example of the same line of thinking that is at the heart of many of these problems and attempting to show how it extends to both sides, liberal and conservative.
But they really aren't similar issues at all. The problem of gay marriage is specifically against the subject of the debate, aka homosexuals. The problem of abortion is about a disagreement in definition.
People like to trick themselves and say "I have no problems with homosexuals, but keep them outta our marriages" and etc. Well, they obviously do have a problem with homosexuals then.
Same exact thing as the "I'm not a racist, but keep them away from our neighborhoods" deal. If you wanted to use a hot button issue, you should have gone with racism.
|
Legal benefits should be the same for both obviously, but Christian churches should have the right to refuse church ceremonies, which gay couples shouldn't want anyway.
That's just what I think.
|
On August 05 2010 07:58 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:52 L wrote: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. 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.
So why push for marriage instead of fight for federal civil unions?
On August 05 2010 08:06 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:41 L wrote: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.
So its only close minded if you're not close minded? The doubletalk in your discourse is hilarious. Bolded for good times.
As for the middle portion; I'm not randomly assigning a start to life. Science is pretty clear on where a novel human is created. Whatever social definition is used is generally just a justification to avoid dealing with your next point: that quite frankly we don't give a shit about life unless its useful.
Since Henri Dunant's experiences at Solferino, the west has embraced a culture of humanism, while simultaneously acting against its only real tenent; That all humans are equally valuable regardless of who they are. Is that true? Obviously not, but its a nice fiction. I, personally, agree with you. No one cares if we kill cows, trees, whatever, so why should we care about a fetal human? Well, because people believe that humans are somehow magic and that we're all exceptional beings blessed with some kind of intrinsic essence. Quite frankly, as a society we're still coming to terms with the concept of the human body as a commodity, and the abortion discourse shows it. So instead of talking about doing something for the utility, we try to define our way out of doing it in the first place (e.g It isn't killing a human because this genetically distinct being is reliant on the mother! It isn't killing a human because everyone knows that its only a human when its the start of the third trimester! It isn't killing a human because xyz).
I have zero problems with abortion, but I have huge problems with the way its discussed. Similarly, this issue falls into the exact same pattern. Heads up, but you debate in the exact same way as that 'average voter'. You aren't enlightened or better than them.
|
On August 05 2010 08:26 L wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:58 keV. wrote:On August 05 2010 07:52 L wrote: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. 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. So why push for marriage instead of fight for federal civil unions?
Why fight for something that's unconstitutional to begin with?
|
On August 05 2010 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:
But they really aren't similar issues at all. The problem of gay marriage is specifically against the subject of the debate, aka homosexuals. The problem of abortion is about a disagreement in definition.
People like to trick themselves and say "I have no problems with homosexuals, but keep them outta our marriages" and etc. Well, they obviously do have a problem with homosexuals then.
Same exact thing as the "I'm not a racist, but keep them away from our neighborhoods" deal. If you wanted to use a hot button issue, you should have gone with racism.
One could argue that the conflict over Prop 8 essentially lies in the acknowledgement of the validity of homosexual unions, in which case it would make the two quite similar in my eyes. It's because supporters don't actually recognize and respect these unions that they don't recognize the right for people in such unions to legally marry. I seem to recall many Prop 8 supporters arguing over what actually defines a valid union for a marriage. To them, it would be opening the doors to a lot of other unions they don't acknowledge such as between a human being and an animal or a human being and an inanimate object.
I won't disagree with the part about there being a good amount of animosity directed at homosexuals within the movement, but I don't think it's right to reduce this argument to merely that. I think the question the courts are asking really is "What is marriage?", "What should it be?", and "Is it a fundamental right?" Really issues of definition and interpretation at heart.
|
On August 05 2010 07:51 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:44 keV. wrote: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. 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.
Those are civil unions in general. I should have clarified. Since we are talking about Prop 8, I assumed we were talking about California specifically. There is no difference between a civil union and marriage in California. Also, concerning your 1997 list, an act (or something of that sort) was passed in 2005 which grants members of civil unions ALL the same rights as a married couple. It doesn't cost thousands in legal fees, etc.
Heterosexuals can also enter into domestic partnerships I believe.
EDIT: Since we are also still talking about CA (I'm assuming) then all arguments about being recognized federally are also null, simply because the federal government still won't recognize a homosexual California marriage. If we have deviated from Prop 8 and gotten to Civil Union vs Gay Marriage in general, or something of that sort, then nvm. I've kept up to date the past ~5 pages though and haven't really seen it change so...
|
On August 05 2010 08:33 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:
But they really aren't similar issues at all. The problem of gay marriage is specifically against the subject of the debate, aka homosexuals. The problem of abortion is about a disagreement in definition.
People like to trick themselves and say "I have no problems with homosexuals, but keep them outta our marriages" and etc. Well, they obviously do have a problem with homosexuals then.
Same exact thing as the "I'm not a racist, but keep them away from our neighborhoods" deal. If you wanted to use a hot button issue, you should have gone with racism. One could argue that the conflict over Prop 8 essentially lies in the acknowledgement of the validity of homosexual unions, in which case it would make the two quite similar in my eyes. It's because supporters don't actually recognize and respect these unions that they don't recognize the right for people in such unions to legally marry. I seem to recall many Prop 8 supporters arguing over what actually defines a valid union for a marriage. To them, it would be opening the doors to a lot of other unions they don't acknowledge such as between a human being and an animal or a human being and an inanimate object. I won't disagree with the part about there being a good amount of animosity directed at homosexuals within the movement, but I don't think it's right to reduce this argument to merely that. I think the question the courts are asking really is "What is marriage?", "What should it be?", and "Is it a fundamental right?" Really issues of definition and interpretation at heart.
Those may be the questions the courts are asking, but if that's the case, the courts really have no justification for stopping homosexuals from attaining a marriage license. It is after all unconstitutional.
However, the voters are a different breed, and I could only wish they would place those questions onto the forefront of the debate.
And for those voters who believe opening marriage to include, gasp, another human, would entail expanding that definition to other extremities, I would tell them to go read a logical reasoning book. The issue is really civil rights 2.0, and I would find it completely egregious if the courts vote in favor of Prop 8.
|
On August 05 2010 08:32 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:26 L wrote:On August 05 2010 07:58 keV. wrote:On August 05 2010 07:52 L wrote: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. 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. So why push for marriage instead of fight for federal civil unions? Why fight for something that's unconstitutional to begin with?
Because everything's potentially constitutional with amendments.
Heterosexuals can also enter into domestic partnerships I believe. Even more than that, in certain jurisdictions they're automatically put into civil unions for a number of purposes if they live together for a certain period of time without formally getting linked.
|
i support gay marriages and especially gay sex, but many of you are missing the point.
It isn't fair to say that prop 8 creates a blatant inequality. The support for Prop 8 says, I cannot have a homosexual marriage, and neither should you. For a thought experiment that will allow you to see into a prop8 supporter's eyes is in the spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler + Imagine you're married, have a happy family, and then you see someone get married to a goat. Or a Tree. Or a corpse. Of course its going to be upsetting. The greatest decision of your life is associated with that sick fuck who's having sex with a rotting body? That would be something you would fight against. Similarly, many christian people find gay marriage to be just as abhorrent. It's not some sort of fundamentalist nazi-ism, its actually stated in the bible.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:13.
Majority rules is not an argument in the United States. One of the defining aspects of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which the judicial system was created to fight. No amount of majority rules can make something constitutional or unconstitutional.
Abortion has nothing to do with this argument, and it has already been discussed to death. give it a rest.
|
I love how the people against Prop 8 are spinning it into a " ___ right" debate, where the "blank" can be civil, legal, or personal rights. What is the basis of these rights? Then why not legalize polygamy or even legalize "marriage" with animals or un-living objects?
|
On August 05 2010 08:26 L wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:58 keV. wrote:On August 05 2010 07:52 L wrote: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. 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. So why push for marriage instead of fight for federal civil unions? Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:06 TOloseGT wrote:On August 05 2010 07:41 L wrote: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. So its only close minded if you're not close minded? The doubletalk in your discourse is hilarious. Bolded for good times. As for the middle portion; I'm not randomly assigning a start to life. Science is pretty clear on where a novel human is created. Whatever social definition is used is generally just a justification to avoid dealing with your next point: that quite frankly we don't give a shit about life unless its useful. Since Henri Dunant's experiences at Solferino, the west has embraced a culture of humanism, while simultaneously acting against its only real tenent; That all humans are equally valuable regardless of who they are. Is that true? Obviously not, but its a nice fiction. I, personally, agree with you. No one cares if we kill cows, trees, whatever, so why should we care about a fetal human? Well, because people believe that humans are somehow magic and that we're all exceptional beings blessed with some kind of intrinsic essence. Quite frankly, as a society we're still coming to terms with the concept of the human body as a commodity, and the abortion discourse shows it. So instead of talking about doing something for the utility, we try to define our way out of doing it in the first place (e.g It isn't killing a human because this genetically distinct being is reliant on the mother! It isn't killing a human because everyone knows that its only a human when its the start of the third trimester! It isn't killing a human because xyz). I have zero problems with abortion, but I have huge problems with the way its discussed. Similarly, this issue falls into the exact same pattern. Heads up, but you debate in the exact same way as that 'average voter'. You aren't enlightened or better than them.
That first sentence was worded terribly, I admit it. However, I still stand by my belief that not all opinions are equal, just as not all debates can fall to either side. On the case of abortion, I think it's very clear cut.
|
On August 05 2010 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:
Those may be the questions the courts are asking, but if that's the case, the courts really have no justification for stopping homosexuals from attaining a marriage license. It is after all unconstitutional.
However, the voters are a different breed, and I could only wish they would place those questions onto the forefront of the debate.
And for those voters who believe opening marriage to include, gasp, another human, would entail expanding that definition to other extremities, I would tell them to go read a logical reasoning book. The issue is really civil rights 2.0, and I would find it completely egregious if the courts vote in favor of Prop 8.
How is it unconstitutional when marriage isn't defined in the US Constitution? Or are you talking about the California State Constitution? Hell, I don't even think marriage is MENTIONED in the US Constitution... I should probably go look that up, though...
|
On August 05 2010 08:43 RAUS wrote:i support gay marriages and especially gay sex, but many of you are missing the point. It isn't fair to say that prop 8 creates a blatant inequality. The support for Prop 8 says, I cannot have a homosexual marriage, and neither should you. For a thought experiment that will allow you to see into a prop8 supporter's eyes is in the spoiler. + Show Spoiler + Imagine you're married, have a happy family, and then you see someone get married to a goat. Or a Tree. Or a corpse. Of course its going to be upsetting. The greatest decision of your life is associated with that sick fuck who's having sex with a rotting body? That would be something you would fight against. Similarly, many christian people find gay marriage to be just as abhorrent. It's not some sort of fundamentalist nazi-ism, its actually stated in the bible.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:13. Majority rules is not an argument in the United States. One of the defining aspects of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which the judicial system was created to fight. No amount of majority rules can make something constitutional or unconstitutional. Abortion has nothing to do with this argument, and it has already been discussed to death. give it a rest.
Hahahah that made me laugh. Especially gay sex?
Sorry for off topic.
EDIT: In retrospect that ISN'T the Constitution so nvm!
:-P
TO BE ON TOPIC
On August 05 2010 08:45 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:
Those may be the questions the courts are asking, but if that's the case, the courts really have no justification for stopping homosexuals from attaining a marriage license. It is after all unconstitutional.
However, the voters are a different breed, and I could only wish they would place those questions onto the forefront of the debate.
And for those voters who believe opening marriage to include, gasp, another human, would entail expanding that definition to other extremities, I would tell them to go read a logical reasoning book. The issue is really civil rights 2.0, and I would find it completely egregious if the courts vote in favor of Prop 8. How is it unconstitutional when marriage isn't defined in the US Constitution? Or are you talking about the California State Constitution?
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 declares that marriage is between one man and one woman and no state need recognize the union of a same-sex couple.
As Wikipedia says as well "the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman."
SECOND EDIT: My 2000th post! Yay Muta.
|
On August 05 2010 08:45 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:
Those may be the questions the courts are asking, but if that's the case, the courts really have no justification for stopping homosexuals from attaining a marriage license. It is after all unconstitutional.
However, the voters are a different breed, and I could only wish they would place those questions onto the forefront of the debate.
And for those voters who believe opening marriage to include, gasp, another human, would entail expanding that definition to other extremities, I would tell them to go read a logical reasoning book. The issue is really civil rights 2.0, and I would find it completely egregious if the courts vote in favor of Prop 8. How is it unconstitutional when marriage isn't defined in the US Constitution? Or are you talking about the California State Constitution?
Yes, since there are other states in which gay marriage is legal, we're specifically talking about the California State Constitution.
Doesn't the Federal Government leave it up to the states in the case of civil matters?
|
On August 05 2010 08:35 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:51 semantics wrote:On August 05 2010 07:44 keV. wrote: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. 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. Those are civil unions in general. I should have clarified. Since we are talking about Prop 8, I assumed we were talking about California specifically. There is no difference between a civil union and marriage in California. Also, concerning your 1997 list, an act (or something of that sort) was passed in 2005 which grants members of civil unions ALL the same rights as a married couple. It doesn't cost thousands in legal fees, etc. Heterosexuals can also enter into domestic partnerships I believe. EDIT: Since we are also still talking about CA (I'm assuming) then all arguments about being recognized federally are also null, simply because the federal government still won't recognize a homosexual California marriage. If we have deviated from Prop 8 and gotten to Civil Union vs Gay Marriage in general, or something of that sort, then nvm. I've kept up to date the past ~5 pages though and haven't really seen it change so...
actually in cali there are some difference still it's alot better then most states but there are still some differences, on i know off the top of my head is you can get married with parental consent under the age of 18 you cannot enter a civil union until you are 18, so they are no the same i'm sure there are more important ones but that's just the one i know. Anyways my my things is being equal the same thing under a different name is not equal at least socially.
|
On August 05 2010 08:50 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:35 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 05 2010 07:51 semantics wrote:On August 05 2010 07:44 keV. wrote: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. 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. Those are civil unions in general. I should have clarified. Since we are talking about Prop 8, I assumed we were talking about California specifically. There is no difference between a civil union and marriage in California. Also, concerning your 1997 list, an act (or something of that sort) was passed in 2005 which grants members of civil unions ALL the same rights as a married couple. It doesn't cost thousands in legal fees, etc. Heterosexuals can also enter into domestic partnerships I believe. EDIT: Since we are also still talking about CA (I'm assuming) then all arguments about being recognized federally are also null, simply because the federal government still won't recognize a homosexual California marriage. If we have deviated from Prop 8 and gotten to Civil Union vs Gay Marriage in general, or something of that sort, then nvm. I've kept up to date the past ~5 pages though and haven't really seen it change so... actually in cali there are some difference still it's alot better then most states but there are still some differences, on i know off the top of my head is you can get married with parental consent under the age of 18 you cannot enter a civil union until you are 18, so they are no the same i'm sure there are more important ones but that's just the one i know.
Are you positive? Because I just looked up a plethora of posts that say there is not ANY differences between the two, with the exception of the form you fill out to apply (marriage license vs civil union form). I've also debated plenty of times with people that have used that argument and not once have I ever heard anything ever brought up to counter that argument.
EDIT: You're right, thanks Wikipedia!
While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must have a common residence; this is not a requirement for marriage license applicants.[2]
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older; minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.[2]
* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage; there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.[2]
* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan; domestic partners are not.[2][4][5] In April 2010, a lawsuit was filed challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from the program.[6]
* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships[2], in which one partner believes himself or herself to be married in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.
* The process for terminating a domestic partnership is more complex and expensive than the divorce process. On May 17, 2009, a bill passed the California state assembly which, if passed into law, would streamline and equalize the processes.[7]
* California's unemployment insurance program allows the someone about to be married to move to another city in order to marry that person and to begin to collect unemployment insurance immediately, this benefit is not provided to those just about to enter into a domestic partnership. In 2010 a bill was introduced in the California Aseembly which, if passed, will eliminate this discrepancy.[8][9] (Note that domestic partnership, unlike marriage, requires co-residency, as described earlier.)
|
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.
I just wanted to quote this again as I believe it is an extremely compelling argument that has no legitimate rebuttal.
The fact is that marriage IS a legal institution whether it SHOULD be is a different argument entirely. Because it is a legal institution there must be equal protection under the law which is not the case with the current separation of civil unions and marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
