Printable View
I'm not that familiar with the American Family Association so I'm curious. You're implying that they are "trying to get laws passed to infringe on their rights". May I ask which "rights" they're attempting to infringe upon?Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
Well Alan, actually being sub-standard humans, they don't actually enjoy all the rights we 'normal' folk get. At least not in all states. They can't get married in most states and the AFA is trying to keep it that way as well as reverse the right in the states that do recognize the fully 'humanness' of gays. They also advocate arresting gays cause there are still laws on the books against sodomy because, of course, what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms is the governments business. If you're gay that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
So, in a way you're right in that they aren't infringing on real 'rights' cause they don't really exist, if you're gay.
EQUALITY FOR ALL!! Well, no, not really. Just kidding.
I would say generally the inherent rights to a safe and secure environment within which we can raise our children, hold jobs, and live our lives. The rights of Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
So, if I wanted to marry my sister or perhaps my neighbors wife, that would be the same thing wouldn't it? Not allowing me to do so would be a violation of my "rights" since my neighbor had the right to marry his wife and virtually every other male on the planet would enjoy the right to marry my sister.
Granted, I don't actually want to do either of those things, but if I did, are my "rights" actually being violated? And would I be correct in labeling anyone who disagreed with me as a "hater" or a "hate group"? I'm just trying to understand this whole argument of "rights".
I have some confusion on this...gay people do what they want in their bedrooms, heterosexual people do what they want in their bedrooms...its all about what people do in their bedrooms right? so who is stopping that?
Here's a short list - I've seen several references that there is on the order of 1400 "rights" conveyed by legal marriage:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
In terms of the state, marriage is a legal economic entity - denying it to same sex couples would be akin to denying homosexuals the right to form corporations or partnerships.
All of the things you have listed above can generally be handled through legal channels other than the proviso of marriage. Many heterosexual couples who choose not to marry face these issues and find ways to handle them legally. I'm going to step on a lot of toes here but I think this hysteria is caused by a few reasons: 1. Politicians see gays as a voting block hence creating issues where there are none to create a rallying cry and a venue for promises of rewards for votes. (Gay community is being shamelessly hustled and used by policiticans). 2. In a further effort to create a "minority" status for gays, politicians are exploiting gays and their issues. As far as I know gay people come in all colors, shapes and sizes. Sexual preference does not a minority make. If that were the case foot-fetishists could have their own minority status, etc. etc.
Personally I think the state should not be involved in marriage at all - it's clearly a religious institution and if as you say that the legal side can "generally" be handled through legal channels (it's only fair to have all people jump through the same hoops), there's no real reason for the state to be involved. It would also remove all politics from the issue.
On the other hand, I think civil unions are a great idea - like a corporation all the legal details are spelled out and attached to a simple label. Rather than bringing your box of legal paperwork to the hospital to try to prove to their legal department why you should be allowed to see your dying partner.
"Many heterosexual couples who choose not to marry face these issues and find ways to handle them legally." I guess the difference there is that they had the choice.
++1Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
Amen Brother Creaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
Oh Alan, really? Are you really going to trot out the 'ol "if we let women vote then we have to let dogs and cats vote"? It's the goofiest argument ever. It's really NOT a slippery slope from affording gays all the rights 'we' enjoy to incest, harems, or life as we know it ending. Your hair won't fall out (or grow on your palm), daughters won't marry fathers, and unfortunately your neighbor won't stop beating his wife.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Are you worried about the sanctity of marriage? Ok, well then, lets out law divorce. Cause that is what is destroying families, not Steve and Dave holding hands down the road.
You keep saying you are non religious. So why do you care? All the arguments are religious based.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what you're talking about although I do find your last line interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I can't speak for all the arguments as I'm not sure what they may all be, but the one I keep seeing here and elsewhere has to do with civil rights. I still don't understand that line of reasoning which, by the way, doesn't have any religious aspect to it at all. Perhaps you could explain?
In a word, Alan, just as the "Bible" was used as an excuse that it was o.k. to have slavery, just as the "Bible" was used as the reason why Jim Crow laws were perfectly all right to discriminate against African-Americans, the "Bible" is the source that is used to justify continued discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens. So, as in the other examples, it IS a civil rights issue, but the arguments that are used to continue the discrimination are usually religion based.
Catwoman: You said, "All of the things you have listed above can generally be handled through legal channels other than the proviso of marriage. Many heterosexual couples who choose not to marry face these issues and find ways to handle them legally. I'm going to step on a lot of toes here but I think this hysteria is caused by a few reasons: 1. Politicians see gays as a voting block hence creating issues where there are none to create a rallying cry and a venue for promises of rewards for votes. (Gay community is being shamelessly hustled and used by policiticans). 2. In a further effort to create a "minority" status for gays, politicians are exploiting gays and their issues. As far as I know gay people come in all colors, shapes and sizes. Sexual preference does not a minority make. If that were the case foot-fetishists could have their own minority status, etc. etc. "
Perhaps you are not intimately acquainted with a number of gay people, or do not have family members who are gay and meet with legal discrimination every day of their lives, as well as personal discrimination and bigotry. Those of us who do, and see the obstacles, discrimination and bigotry they face, often feel very differently.
It's really all over but the shouting, although full rights for gays will still take awhile. But at this point, for the first time in this country, a plurality of citizens believe gays should have the right to marry, a plurality of citizens believe that gays should serve in our military openly (as they have throughout our history, closeted), and a plurality of citizens believe that gay families can provide the same love and care to adopted kids as heterosexual couples or singles........the bigotry centers in an always smaller, but still very vocal minority. Such as the American Family Association under discussion.
AND, even when those people were in the majority, it didn't mean they were right. Before civil rights for African-Americans, if whether Jim Crow laws should be maintained had been put up for votes in the south, a huge majority would have voted to keep them.
My husband has two business partners who are gay as is his right arm, his admin. asst. They do quite well in society, church, business, etc. We consider them dear friends and routinely spend time together. I do not however, need to talk to them about what they do in the bedroom or their legal issues. The same as with any other people....You do gays a wrong when you set them up for pitfalls - expecting society to treat them one way when what is needed is just to focus on the real business at hand. That is EQUALITY.
The gnashing of teeth and moaning over gay rights is a manufactured talking point of the left - there always has to somebody the big bad Republicans are hurting...You let yourself be used by the democratic machine as does everyone else who keeps this issue front and center instead of letting EVERY American enjoy and compete under the right and priveledges we already have.
Perhaps if you DID talk to them, (if they would be honest with you, given your outlook and politics) about legal issues, rights that others enjoy that they do not, and discrimination they may have faced and still face, you might be very surprised.
I work, as a heterosexual person, toward full rights and nondiscrimination for gay people in honor of my uncle Jack, now deceased, a number of dear friends, children of dear friends and others. I don't believe the difficulties they face are some "manufactured issue", and until they enjoy the same rights as the rest of us, I'll continue to do so.
I believe it would diminish my friends if I pigeon-holed them as "gays"...They are X, Y, and Z my friends and business associates. We talk about travel, art, food, wine, etc. They do not ask me about my sexual habits nor I them. That is a level playing field. If you ask Joe Blow off the street about his legal issues and discrimiation you will get an earful from just about anybody. This is since time immemorial. Its time to put that to rest along with all the other manufactured special interets in this nation. They are vote-getting political mechanisms as well as "labels" which bring with them, in many cases, a push to "the front of the line" for goodies and handouts.
"You do gays a wrong when you set them up for pitfalls - expecting society to treat them one way when what is needed is just to focus on the real business at hand. That is EQUALITY. "
I agree with your words so much - it's amazing we attach such different meanings to them.
so, what you're saying is, if we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist? That gay people are perfectly happy, or should be, in the closet? I guess your friends have learned to just shut up and sit down when dining, and socializing with their "good friends".Quote:
Originally Posted by Catwoman
Do you deny the republican party, and the AFA, is trying to deny full marriage rights to gay people? how is that equality?
Why should you be allowed to go from A to B, and the gay couple has to sidestep past XYZ before going to B, but then only if his lawyer has dotted the I's and crossed the T's. And this must be repeated for each and every 'right' they want that you enjoyed simply by getting married. Once.
Oh, and don't tell me about it cause I don't wanna hear cause ignorance is bliss.
You know, I'll bet they don't consider you as 'good' a friend to them as they are to you.
Peggy, you presume way too much. Please continue to be happy with all your preconceived notions - I relate to PEOPLE as people not the issue du jour. My politics and personal//religious beliefs are out there for everyone to see - You can twist the definitions to suit your causes
so, what you're saying is, if we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist? That gay people are perfectly happy, or should be, in the closet? I guess your friends have learned to just shut up and sit down when dining, and socializing with their "good friends".
Actually what I'm saying Peggy is, stop making an issue where there is none.
I beg to differ. I think it is indeed an issue, more correctly a civil rights issue. Why should a group of people be discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation? Why should a gay couple not be guaranteed the same rights as a hetero couple? Why should the government be allowed on a state by state basis to decide who is decent and who is not, who is entitled to spousal benefits and who is not? Why, just why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catwoman
This is where we stand in Texas.
Wed Apr. 13, 2011 12:01 AM PDT
Eight years after the Supreme Court deemed Texas' anti-sodomy statute unconstitutional, the state's penal code still lists "homosexual conduct" as a criminal offense—and Republican lawmakers are fighting to keep it that way.
A pair of identical bills that have been introduced in the Texas House would delete language from the state penal code making "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex" a misdemeanor offense. Under the proposals, a clause in the state's health and safety code that cites the criminal statute and states that homosexuality is "not an acceptable lifestyle" would also be repealed.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the state's enforcement of the "homosexual conduct" provision was unconstitutional. In that case, two men were arrested for having sex in their bedroom, after a neighbor phoned in a phony weapons complaint. Texas, which at the time was one of 14 states with anti-sodomy laws on the books, has noted the Lawrence decision in its online penal code, but it takes a full act of the legislature to repeal a law.
"By removing it from the statute, it says Texas is both literally and figuratively complying with the law and making that known to its citizens," says Coleman. "This is a legal issue, not a social issue. It would be like still having on the books that an African-American couldn't marry an Anglo."
Peace
I'm quite offended that both Peggy and LC think that I must not be "enlightened" enough to have real relationships with these friends I spoke of. That in itself is the height of arrogance and being judgemental. Unbelievable....
And Scarlett loved her darkies...as long as they knew their place. :~)
I think they are going to need some star power to fill up a stadium that big. This has the potential to be a huge flop.
Yes, but you almost ask for it. You state that the gay issues are manufactured by the left. How ridiculous. You deny all of the inroads made by the GLBT movement since before and after Stonewall. The GLBT community and its friends did NOT manufacture these issues. Possibly your friends who work for your husband don't want to make any waves by having an honest discussion with you. Maybe they feel there jobs would be at stake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catwoman
You mention giving everyone EQUALITY. Well, how do you think the GLBT community will get full equality without bringing their issues into the political "sphere"? Laws have to be passed and overturned for full equality. The GLBT issues are civil rights issues that have permeated all facets of our social, cultural, religious, political, philosophical, etc. lives. How sad that we can't all remember that they are entitled to the same rights as everyone, because, after all, they do not "choose" their lifestyle. IMHO, even if a lifestyle is a choice, it is worthy of equality.
Peggy - outrageous remark and I'm reporting you
@Polliwog - I said two of his Business Partners are gay, not work FOR him...equal footing here. His admin asst. is also a gay man.
This reminds me of the "I want to marry my dog" issue. (No one ever remembers that the dog is underage fer Gawd's sake!)Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
I think I'll rely on a bit of science here, and maybe some common sense. Marrying your sister is inappropriate and taboo based upon the appropriate boundaries of familial relationships, in themselves grounded in a long time understanding of the genetic risks. Marrying your neighbors wife is between you & them! If you're referencing polygamy, that's another topic.
The arguments against the state endorsing marriage between same gender couples are neither scientifically grounded nor made from common sense. Legal marriage is a civil right granted by the state to protect its interests largely in the realm of childrearing & assuring that divorce is equitable so that children don't end up being dependent upon the state for support. It's a 3 party contract between the betrothed and the state. Any prohibition against legal marriage of two consenting adults is by itself illogical. Same gender couples acquire property & have children - the two primary activities within a marriage that the state has an interest in. Not all marrying couples do either or both; nonetheless, the state hedges its bet by contracting equally with all who marry.
Religious marriage is a sacrament, and every church has as its absolute right to take whatever stance they wish regarding marriages of many kinds. No one has a civil right to a religious ritual. Catholics don't recognizes divorce and remarriage.
So, advocating for the state to license same gender couples to mary is really of both civil rights; having access to the same legal protections as other married couples, which are specified within the binding contract that is marriage, and one of common sense. Ditto for federal recognition. Same gender unions have always been a part of human society. Acknowledging this by the granting of equal civil rights in marriage is an important step in so many ways.
I don't understand the objections to it. Perhaps you could explain those to me.
If it were that simple, it wouldn't be an issue. My marriage certainly doesn't stop existing outside the bedroom. It also exists in all our financial affairs, including co-owing a mortgage, etc. It exists in our legal affairs with children, title to the car, auto insurance, our federal tax returns, our Living Wills (which we don't have yet - but I will some day, thanks for reminding me!), each of our rights of survivorship; the list goes on & on. It's near-impossible to make a civil agreement piece by piece which replaces the complex weave of civil rights which legal marriage confers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catwoman
It's also a very important rite-of-passage in our society. Marriage confers a particular status to couples and families. I experienced this when I married my DH after living with him for 7 years. His kids - my steps - immediately felt different about our family. That's the socio-cultural significance. It's about belonging.
So, no, what happens sexually between any two people is not what marriage is about. But hopefully that's some of the good stuff!
who you gonna report me to? Rhett Butler? :laff:Quote:
Originally Posted by Catwoman
OK, well maybe it was a little over the top, but I was trying to make a point. Saying things should just stay the way they were cause it worked for me doesn't fly. it may have worked for you, but it ain't working for gay people.
So, if you're not gay, what do you care? Really, what's the objection?
There are several people in my life that I consider friends who happen to be gay, a few of them I've met through my brother who is also gay. I've never had any problem posing any question to them and they certainly have no problem discussing the gay topic du jour with me. In fact gay (rights) issues often make up a significant portion of our conversation. What I can not imagine is having someone you care about in your life who is gay and NOT spending time discussing these topics. I guess "friend" is a subjective term with a different meaning to everyone.
On a related note, my brother turned me on to a story of a group of clergy in my very conservative home state of Nebraska. It seems more than 100 ordained (Christian) ministers have signed a proclamation stating that they do not believe homosexuality is a sin. One of the signers, a Rev. Eric Elnes, said, "We believe homosexuality is not a sin. It’s not a birth defect or a choice. God created people this way. And if God created them this way, they need to be honored for who they are, and fully included in church life and wider society". I don't know how you could say it any better than that. I am VERY proud that a group with such an enlightened view was able to put this together in Nebraska. It should give hope to all y'all down there in Te-jas. Here is a link to the story...
http://www.ketv.com/r/28214658/detail.html?taf=oma
Peggy should be censured in some fashion for that remark. Is that is Gregg?
Whatever happened to mud wrestling?
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...1f9IQu3HAIjohA
Peace
*** MOD RESPONSE ***
Catwoman, the response that I believe you are referring to may not have been the most tasteful post in this thread, but it does not violate forum guidelines so a formal reprimand would not be appropriate. How a thread about Gov. Perry's prayer meeting morphed into a gay rights discussion is one of the great mysteries of internet discussion forums, but it is a valuable and important topic. You seem to be in the minority which is never an easy position to be in, but it makes your opinion all the more valuable to the conversation. Thank you for your willingness to participate. The more we can all learn about other points of view the more tolerant our society will become.
Everyone: not that the line has been crossed, but please continue to practice the art of civil discussion for which you are so famous. Read twice, post once.
Hey Zig, you have the video to that? :moon:
The sponsor of the "Prayapolooza" prayer meeting in Reliant Stadium appears to be an anti-gay organization. I think this alone shows the stupidity of Rick Perry. It makes me wonder if he goal was more about publicity than anything. He is well known to be trouble maker and seems to be proud of it. I think the American public really likes the "American Idol" form of campaigning - we seem to have lost the fine art if humility and modesty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Peace
Censured? For what? For saying this all reminds me of a character from 'Gone With the Wind'? Have you ever read Gone With the Wind? Actually, your opinion is very much like many in the south before the war. They couldn't for the life of them understand what more the blacks could want. They had food, shelter, and many were treated 'nice' in that maybe they weren't beaten. And I'll just bet there were cases of 'friendships' between black and white. But that didn't change the status of the black. And I'm guessing master and slave didn't sit around 'discussing' the slaves issues. But that didn't mean they didn't have issues. It just wasn't discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catwoman
Same with voting rights for blacks, or women. Some, like Alan, would suggest that granting rights are a slippery slope to, well I'm not sure, but something horrible that will end life as we know it.
But if granting equal rights is a slippery slope, then hand me my sled, cause I'm riding it all the way!
@Peggy - you are full of stereo-typical prejudicial thinking. Read a good book recently titled "Arguing With Idiots.." good read, you might enjoy it.
You mis-interpret me. Rights are not granted, they are inalienable. Entitlements are granted, and laws which take away freedom of choice, freedom of association and freedom of expression are heinous. Simply declaring something a right doesn't make it so IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
Any group which attempts to use the legal system to grant themselves an entitlement or take away others freedom of association and expression will find resistance. It is a hard task to undo thousands of years of social convention in the course of a generation or two and anyone or any organization who labels those who don't get on board soon enough as haters, racists, etc., do their cause a dis-service.
I think this one does cross the line. Personal attacks don't forward this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catwoman
*** MOD HAT ON (AGAIN) ***
This is mainly said for general reference. Any issue of censuring, should it ever become necessary, is done privately, not in this public domain. Mods here will not conduct drum head trials, public floggings, etc. We work very hard to adhere to the forum guidelines of etiquette and civil discourse to help make this an inviting place to share your views and in order to minimize ANY possibility of censorship on the part of the mods. I assure you all that would be the slipperiest slope of all. If anyone has any questions about the guidelines and what is, or isn't, acceptable please feel free to contact any of the mods or admins.
Creaker is absolutely right: personal attacks do NOT forward discussions. Keep it civil.