so let me get this right, you are perfectly OK with religious lobbies using their financial clout to push through legislation which basically runs in contradiction to the first amendment and then you propose creating a watered down version of the "institution of marriage" a-la civil union to avoid offending the fundamentalists.Originally Posted by Quesa
I'm not sure if you are debating me or not but all of this doesn't matter. Yes, there are people who just don't like gays and don't want to give them additional rights simply because they don't believe they are doing it right but I would wager a large portion of my shitty yearly income that most people just don't like gays being married and would give 0 fucks if they were given the right of civil unions. Where do you hear about all the hubub regarding this topic?...where gays can be married not where they can get a civil union.
Yes, I'm for people having the right to choose to do what they want to do because hey, welcome to America and what this country was founded upon. Furthermore, if you are going to start quoting amendments, the first amendment protects free speech, which covers the actions you are commenting.
Civil unions isn't watering down anything, what are you on about?
Christians get all butt-frustrated about gay "marriage," because they somehow think that the Government determines whether or not a husband and wife have entered into the Sacrament of Matrimony. (Hint: the government can't do shit about that.) But because the same word is used, people get all up in arms.
In the Catholic Church, at least, gay couples can't enter into Matrimony, but the Church encourages gay people to be faithful to a partner and abstain from having gay sex.
BUT WAIT! WHY WON'T THE CHURCH LET GAY PEOPLE HAVE SEX?
Well the thing is, the Church doesn't let anyone have sex. In the perfect world, even Catholic husbands and wives will have had sex only once for every child they have conceived. The purpose of sex is to have kids, so "technically," you should only be having sex when you want to have a child.
No one actually does that, but the Church does hold gays and straights up to the same standards of abstinence. vauve
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Catholics want to save gays just like any of their other wayward flock. Additionally, we all know there are hypocrisies within any religion as well as any other aspect of our society.
Quesa, I'm not real militant about gay rights but let me tell you something.
I agree that the government shouldn't deal in marriage, but as long as it does, on principle I refuse to settle for different rights for me and my future husband than anyone else. So what that people are "tolerant" enough to let me have a civil union? If it's not a marriage I'm still not equal. And that's not ok, just like if we told blacks during the 60s that "Oh, well white people aren't ready to let you integrate all the way, but most of them wouldn't care if you could go to white elementary school. How about that?"
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
I agree it's shitty and you shouldn't settle until you have the rights you want for your own beliefs, as long as you aren't going around sacrificing virgins. Marriage should be removed from all government language and replaced with Civil Union - that's my stance. I even believe a polygamist should have the right to be with as many women they want - but for tax reasons, they should be union'ed to a single person.
Including the Freedom To Legislate Their Religion Upon Others.
What's Carlin's 11th commandment? Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself?
Also, saying that civil unions aren't "watered down" is p crazy. If you want to make "civil unions" a real thing then you need to give them the same benefits as marriage.
IMHO "married" or "civilly united" or whatever should just be a legal status and the church should stay the fuck out of it. As it stands now it's just government mandated oppression.
The current iteration of Civil Unions isn't what is being discussed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
Confirming what I'd feared but hadn't bothered to look for, Civil Unions were created specifically for same-sex couples.
Separate but equal, anyone? Anyone?
So long as the government is allowed to license unions of any type, SOMEONE will be discriminated against. All of our rights and responsibilities should be based on being individuals, not groupings of 2 to infinity.
I just don't get how this is so complicated for so many people. regulating social contracts requires discrimination. Everyone's civil rights (if marriage is one) are diminished by government licensing.
I think Quesa was saying all unions should be civil, leaving marriage to be a thing of clergy alone. That would be an example of equal but equal. Except for the trios. They can't get married, still. I guess it's OK to violate the rights of the polygamy crowd, though.
Jeebus no liek threesum ?
If you really want change. Stop pushing for equal rights and give the negroes a neighborhood and schools of their own. You know, equal but different.
edit: and if your conclusive answer is "well just get rid of marriage then", a chicken by any other name is still the same chicken. people would be fighting over their god-endowed rights to engage in civil unions and would deny them to the gays.
No, civil unions would be recognized by the government, not marriage. You can get a civil union by performing a marriage ceremony at your chosen place of worship but in the eyes of the government, it's equal in the eyes of the law and I'm not sure how you can get that confused. Isn't that what we are pushing for? If you are trying to push for changing peoples opinion of sexual preference, you're going to be waiting a long time.
Yeah quesa it's pretty naive of you to think that the people currently battling gay marriage will tolerate gays having the same thing as them, even if they both have a 'civil union.' You see, the nuclear man+woman family is sacred and deserves something special, above and beyond everyone else.
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
There will be people who will not like it and continue to not like homosexuals but the point I've been trying to make for the last 2 pages is that there will be less position if you go the civil union route rather than battle for the right to marriage - in which you're battling a majority of Americans due to religious belief. All this protesting and yelling doesn't do as much good as people think, I actually believe it has a negative effect on the path to equal rights.
Yeah, Securitas it's pretty naive of you to think that the people currently battling polygamous marriage will tolerate polyamorists having the same thing as them, even if they both have a 'civil union.' You see, the nuclear person+person family is sacred and deserves something special, above and beyond everyone else.
Right?
what did i ever say about polygamists? i literally don't give a fuck how many people want to enter into a marriage.
e: I suspect the 'hypocritical gay lobby' is focusing on one thing at a time. Besideswhich, lobbies usually focus on the people they are made up of. I doubt gays are on the whole for denying rights to polygamists, but at the same time, they have a limited amount of money and favorable public opinion, so they have to use it to do what they can.
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
We could certainly have a discussion about polygamy/polyandry, but that's not the topic at hand. It's in the same vein as conservatives bellyaching 'Abloo bloo bloo, next we'll have men marrying dogs'
I guess it's easier to support gay marriage (the reason for the Chik-Fil-A fiasco) if you can stop anyone from talking about how they support marriage bas as well.
When you liken your ideas to the civil rights movement, you shouldn't go on TV advocating denying someone a civil right. Of course this was on TV a couple years ago so I have no link.
There's always a couple of people in any movement who say dumb shit, but on the whole the gay community really doesn't mind granting polygamists rights too. Let me tell you that as an insider so you don't waste your time trying to make an issue out of this, manfred.
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
Yeah Polygamy is cool by me, love can exist between multiple people! I was talking to someone about this the other day (about Tilda Swinton's unconventional living arrangements), I think most stuff is fine as long as it involves consenting adults and doesn't kill anyone.
Quesa got a bad wrap. fwiw, he and Manfred seem more centrist than right-wing. I dunno if there's a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger here...
Anyway, I'd like the gub to stop recognizing "marriage" altogether and only offer gender-agnostic "recognition of couplehood" or suchlike which would confer all the rights which "married" couples currently receive. I don't mind the term "civil union" but it has an unsavory history. Call it a banana...
Then the loons would have to lay their bigotry bare in every objection to the law. They'd definitely still go on spewing meaningless religious drivel, but they'd also have to directly attack e.g. disability and pension benefits, inheritance rights, etc. That'd make their medieval mindsets all the more conspicuous, which'd highlight the inanity of this whole damn debate and (I think) hasten social change.
*shrug*
Probably not practical, alas. Pragmatically speaking, I agree with Sec in that, if it's going to be recognizing "marriage", the government should at least be gender-agnostic about it. Many non-hetero folks dislike the "fuck mawwage" idea because the word is special to them and they think removing it from the government's purview would be demeaning to everybody's connubiality. I say this is exactly as dumb as any given Christ-cultist's dogged attachment to the word, but then I am pretty easygoing about language (and I've also seen divorce stats).
wrt poly-relationships: American courts can already handle >2-party property disputes. Since poly relationships are a tiny minority, I don't think it's worthwhile to legally recognize poly relationships. That's with my Pragmatic Cap on, mind; on principle, you should be able to have the gub recognize your 3-or-morrariage (?). I just don't think the complexity of legally codifying poly relationships would be worth the effort. tbh, I haven't really explored the legal ramifications myself, though — I've just talked with Jean Kazez and Russel Blackford about it, and read their writing about such issues.
Poly isn't complicated. I don't see myself getting involved in a polygamous marriage, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or that it should be outlawed.
Or that you won't try.
Oh, and apparently "The Swinton" (as my wife calls her) has come out and explained that she's got a perfectly normal monogamous relationship. I was bummed, as I was going to use this knowledge to yet again pointlessly push for a sisterwife, but alas, my plans were squashed.
I looked it up - yeah, it's a bit atypical (she lives across the street from her ex and their two children) but makes Christmas and vacations pretty convenient.
What that's nowhere near like what I thought it was, that's actually really useful
I wasn't really looking for "convenient," my goal was more like "hot."
Fucking kugu ruins everything.
Holy shit. I can't live within ten miles of my ex and be happy.
Thanks. I dont at all think Quesa and I are right wing.
fartman, maybe but he's not been around to answer lately and I hesitate to hang the label on him while he's gone.
Fartman makes being reactionary look classy, IMHO. He's not a Tea Party shithead at least.
I think all of us should take a turn in the barrel*. Everyone gets assigned a month and has to role-play a right wing voter. If it wasn't for Quesa and Manfred we'd all be bored to tears.
*
When I think of rodeos, I think of when I lived out west. We do have some here in the south but it's more a western state thing (though TX is sort of a hybrid or both).
He's not an Occupy retard either.
I can only assume that you're not talking about his own physical body.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks