Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 170
  1.    #1  
    One of the other interesting stories that emerged from yesterday's election was that Californians voted to ban gay marriage by amending the state constitution to do so. I'm surprised by this given California's status as the most liberal state in our union.

    Where did this go wrong? Why did it fail?

    Perhaps gay and lesbian couples allow themselves to get sucked into a definition of marriage and a subsequent battle that they will continue to lose. Why? Because marriage is a sacrament in most religions, thus, it is in and of itself a religious institution. Gay and lesbians couples will not win this war IMO. So they need a new tactic. I propose they focus on "civil unions" for legal purposes and leave the status of being "married" to their church to bestow upon them.

    For the record, I support civil unions 100%. I also support gay marriage....but only if the religious institution bestowing the status of "married" supports it to. Meaning, the government has no right to mandate that any church accept and perform gay marriages. But if Episcopals want to recognize gay marriage, then so be it. Let freedom of religion, with a healthy separation of church and state, ring.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 11/05/2008 at 03:47 PM.
  2. #2  
    Sad day. Given the other two state "kick the fags" amendments, I'd say our country still has a long way to go.

  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    One of the other interesting stories that emerged from yesterday's election was that Californians voted to ban gay marriage by amending the state constitution to do so. I'm surprised by this given California's status as the most liberal state in our union.

    Where did this go wrong? Why did it fail?

    Perhaps gay and lesbian couples allow themselves to get sucked into a definition of marriage and a subsequent battle that they will continue to lose. Why? Because marriage is a sacrament in most religions, thus, it is in and of itself a religious institution. Gay and lesbians couples will not win this war IMO. So they need a new tactic. I propose they focus on "civil unions" for legal purposes and leave the status of being "married" to their church to bestow upon them.

    For the record, I support civil unions 100%. I also support gay marriage....but only if the religious institution bestowing the status of "married" supports it to. Meaning, the government has no right to mandate that any church accept and perform gay marriages. But if Episcopals want to recognize gay marriage, then so be it. Let freedom of religion, with a healthy separation of church and state, ring.
    I think your proposal is right on track except that I think we should go one step further by having all couples recognized as 'civilly united' as opposed to 'married' in the eyes of the government and kicking marriage or whatever you want to call it completely to religious rites. This way, you sign your contract and become 'united' and then you go to your place of worship for your religious ceremony.

    I am very aggravated with the constitutional bans on gay 'marriages' that keep getting passed in these elections. Constitutions are for providing rights, not prohibiting them...
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  4. #4  
    If they want to get married, I'm not understanding why anyone would want to ban it...

    If I were gay, I'd feel discriminated against... it is not right... IMO it is the same as saying a black, indian, mexican, woman, or whatever can't do something. But that is my opinion...

    I've not seen a good argument yet against gay marriage other than it freaks some people out.

    I do like the argument that it demoralizes society... I love watching someone say that with a straight face... hilarious...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    If they want to get married, I'm not understanding why anyone would want to ban it...

    If I were gay, I'd feel discriminated against... it is not right... IMO it is the same as saying a black, indian, mexican, woman, or whatever can't do something. But that is my opinion...

    I've not seen a good argument yet against gay marriage other than it freaks some people out.
    I wholeheartedly agree but opponents keep using religion as a justification and that's why I state my proposal. There's absolutely no logical argument against my idea because it is completely non-religious and, thus, religion can't be used as reasoning against. Take away that one argument and opponents have nothing.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    I think your proposal is right on track except that I think we should go one step further by having all couples recognized as 'civilly united' as opposed to 'married' in the eyes of the government and kicking marriage or whatever you want to call it completely to religious rites. This way, you sign your contract and become 'united' and then you go to your place of worship for your religious ceremony.

    I am very aggravated with the constitutional bans on gay 'marriages' that keep getting passed in these elections. Constitutions are for providing rights, not prohibiting them...
    I understand what you are saying but I think if I were gay, I'd be more focused on getting civil unions legal and protected first. Marriage is steeped in both religion and tradition in this country and trying to change the definition without recognizing that we fundamentally need to re-examine what marriage is vs. a civil union will be a continuing exercise in futility. But if they divide the two - marriage from civil unions - then perhaps they will conquer in the long run.

    I also think President Obama would have a much easier time getting "civil unions" protected than he would trying to redefine "marriage." It's all semantics IMO, and gay & lesbians would do themselves quite well by recognizing this and pushing for civil unions first.

    If it's not clear, I am not suggesting this because I'm homophobic or anything, because I'm not. Merely an observation I've made for some time now from the outside looking in.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    One of the other interesting stories that emerged from yesterday's election was that Californians voted to ban gay marriage by amending the state constitution to do so. I'm surprised by this given California's status as the most liberal state in our union.

    Where did this go wrong? Why did it fail?
    It's a very common misconception that "California is the most liberal state in our union." California is a huge state. Look at a map of the voting yesterday by county. Even more so, find one from the last presidential election. Now look at the county-by-county map of voting for Prop 8. The majority of California, by area, is Republican. From LA up the coast to the San Francisco Bay Area and a bit above is very Democrat. The middle of the state -- the whole Central Valley -- is Republican. That will help explain why it was passed, which truly bites.

    Now....why Republicans don't want to allow gay marriage is a whole other question, for which I don't have a good answer.
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    If they want to get married, I'm not understanding why anyone would want to ban it...

    If I were gay, I'd feel discriminated against... it is not right... IMO it is the same as saying a black, indian, mexican, woman, or whatever can't do something. But that is my opinion...

    I've not seen a good argument yet against gay marriage other than it freaks some people out.

    I do like the argument that it demoralizes society... I love watching someone say that with a straight face... hilarious...
    Make no mistake about it, they are being discriminated against. But again, I feel they are making it more difficult than it has to be by accepting the term "marriage" as the definition of what it is that they want to do. I think the lines between what is a civil union and what is marriage will eventually blur if civil unions were to become legally recognized and protected.

    I mean, if a gay couple enters into a civil union and the next day goes to church and their priest ceremoniously declares them to "married", what legal basis would any homophobes have to deny them the right to be called "married" within their realm of their church's belief system? The argument is over - they'd have the legally protected right to enter into civil unions and if they are religious and want to enter into a "marriage" within the rules of that religion, who the heck can challenge that?
  9. #9  
    One of the reasons i got married the second time was because my gay friends couldn't. I considered some of the reasons behind marriage (beyond childbearing years) and every reason was legal or financial. Few companies will grant insurance coverage to a "life partner." If you go into the hospital, it must be a relative (legal) to make life-saving decisions for you, or is even allowed to visit in critical care.

    Everyone should be allowed a legal "spouse."
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    I wholeheartedly agree but opponents keep using religion as a justification and that's why I state my proposal. There's absolutely no logical argument against my idea because it is completely non-religious and, thus, religion can't be used as reasoning against. Take away that one argument and opponents have nothing.
    The same could be said in the opposite respect. Having debated same-sex marriage numerous times, where proponets fail is they rely on emotional arguments.

    The whole concept of same-sex marriage can be resolved by merely instituting the Fair Tax, calling same-sex unions just that--unions and by proponents getting off their high horse and acknowledge that in reality, arguments for same-sex marriage, are selfish when placed against society as a whole.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    Constitutions are for providing rights, not prohibiting them...
    If one is speaking from the context of the US, simply put, no. From the standpoint of the United States, the purpose of the Constitution is to define the parameters of what the Federal Government is and is empowered to do. The entire philosophy of the document was that the people had all their rights already. AAMOF, Hamilton argued against having a bill of rights for the very reason that he thought it might be misunderstood as 'providing rights' and that if some thought that those were the only rights guaranteed, it might open the door to denying other rights.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    If one is speaking from the context of the US, simply put, no. From the standpoint of the United States, the purpose of the Constitution is to define the parameters of what the Federal Government is and is empowered to do. The entire philosophy of the document was that the people had all their rights already. AAMOF, Hamilton argued against having a bill of rights for the very reason that he thought it might be misunderstood as 'providing rights' and that if some thought that those were the only rights guaranteed, it might open the door to denying other rights.
    The anecdote about Hamilton is correct, but thankfully most of the rest of the founding fathers and the country disagreed an the Bill of Rghts was immediated added.


    Amendments are as much a part of the constitution as the original. They have no lesser value and arguable have more value because they correct the mistakes that come up (eg slavery) In the case of the first ten amercements, they they has been there for 220 years because of problems recognized immediately by the founders.

    The Civil War finally and fully decided that the constitution did limited states laws when those state laws limited rights to classes of citizens.

    You can see the problem in what Toby says in the second sentence "parameters of the federal government" as States and local government were already abridging freedom of speech and other freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights. It is one of the core reason s for the Bill of Rights

    By the way here is the US Constitution:
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    and acknowledge that in reality, arguments for same-sex marriage, are selfish when placed against society as a whole.
    how do you mean?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    how do you mean?
    Here is a reposting of my points from another forum; if there is any elaboration needed, let me know:

    1: I favor the Fair Tax, so any tax related concerns regarding same-sex versus opposing-sex are done, thrown right out the window. You purchase, you’re taxed, period.

    2: I favor personal rights. Ergo, if I’m the patient in a hospital, it is up to me and me alone who comes and visits—be it my wife, brother, mother, father, female lover, male lover or some bum I met two days prior. This eliminates hopsital visitation concerns (NOTE: A civil union like a marriage may offer the benefits of decision making during critical times).

    3: My belongings are just that, mine. I carry the same rights to designate them to whomever I choose the same as in point number two.

    4: Insurance. Well, okay gay persons might be screwed here. As I see it, insurance is a business and I still believe in the right to choose whom you do and do not do business with. This means if insurance companies wish to refrain from insuring smokers, fat people or homosexuals (not making a correlation between the three) that is their business. However, in the free market it would be unlikely that someone wouldn’t come along and wish to get some of the action from the gay community by insuring them (sort of similar to what Chemistry.com did when Eharmony had the gay-fallout).
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    The anecdote about Hamilton is correct, but thankfully most of the rest of the founding fathers and the country disagreed an the Bill of Rghts was immediated added.
    And Hamilton has been proven correct quite a few times.
    Amendments are as much a part of the constitution as the original.
    Never said they weren't.
    They have no lesser value and arguable have more value because they correct the mistakes that come up (eg slavery) In the case of the first ten amercements, they they has been there for 220 years because of problems recognized immediately by the founders.
    I think you give them a little too much credit. The first ten were placed there since they were used to having a similar declarations, and they didn't want the new government interfering in other matters.
    You can see the problem in what Toby says in the second sentence "parameters of the federal government" as States and local government were already abridging freedom of speech and other freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights. It is one of the core reason s for the Bill of Rights
    No. The reason for the Bill of Rights was that they _didn't_ want the federal government to be able to dictate what states and citizens could and couldn't do other than the limited scope they defined. Why else would the 9th have been included?
    By the way here is the US Constitution:
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    Seems to me that despite whether you or I agree with it, that in this case, there is a due process.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Here is a reposting of my points from another forum; if there is any elaboration needed, let me know:

    1: I favor the Fair Tax, so any tax related concerns regarding same-sex versus opposing-sex are done, thrown right out the window. You purchase, you’re taxed, period.

    2: I favor personal rights. Ergo, if I’m the patient in a hospital, it is up to me and me alone who comes and visits—be it my wife, brother, mother, father, female lover, male lover or some bum I met two days prior. This eliminates hopsital visitation concerns (NOTE: A civil union like a marriage may offer the benefits of decision making during critical times).

    3: My belongings are just that, mine. I carry the same rights to designate them to whomever I choose the same as in point number two.
    Basically you advocate civil unions. But I think your comments…

    Originally Posted by DL.Cummings

    and acknowledge that in reality, arguments for same-sex marriage, are selfish when placed against society as a whole.
    …have a tone of condescension that some might find offending. Gays/lesbians feel discriminated against because they cannot enter into a legally defined relationship the same way that straight couples can. I do not find that selfish at all, anymore than I would have found arguments against woman voting when placed against society as a whole before they could vote.

    That said, gays/lesbians are trying to fight a religious-based tradition and will continue to lose that battle IMO until they separate the religious dogma from the legal rights that they should be afforded.

    4: Insurance. Well, okay gay persons might be screwed here. As I see it, insurance is a business and I still believe in the right to choose whom you do and do not do business with. This means if insurance companies wish to refrain from insuring smokers, fat people or homosexuals (not making a correlation between the three) that is their business. However, in the free market it would be unlikely that someone wouldn’t come along and wish to get some of the action from the gay community by insuring them (sort of similar to what Chemistry.com did when Eharmony had the gay-fallout).
    We disagree here – rather strongly. You are comparing a class of people with groups of people that have behaviors that may be unhealthy. Now if you say that insurance companies should be able to ask whether a couple – gay or straight – regularly engages in unsafe sex, then perhaps you have a point. But assuming that gays practice unsafe sex or placing them in a high-risk category is just as discriminatory as telling an African-American they cannot be insured simply because they are African-Americans.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 11/06/2008 at 08:42 AM.
  17. #17  
    …have a tone of condescension that some might find offending. Gays/lesbians feel discriminated against because they cannot enter into a legally defined relationship the same way that straight couples can. I do not find that selfish at all, anymore than I would have found arguments against woman voting when placed against society as a whole before they could vote.

    They remain selfish due to the fact that people tend to have become very adept at looking at their own situation and no further. Any honest homosexual person who asks themselves the question: Am I the only one being denied something under the current situation, would be forced to look beyond their circumstance and consider others. At that point, they would no longer be able to justify mere marriage for them. Of course, I might be willing to chalk such up to ignorance (in the actual sense of the word, not pejorative name-calling) instead of selfishness.

    That said, gays/lesbians are trying to fight a religious-based tradition and will continue to lose that battle IMO until they separate the religious dogma from the legal rights that they should be afforded.

    Which is exactly what I have done.

    We disagree here – rather strongly. You are comparing a class of people with groups of people that have behaviors that may be unhealthy. Now if you say that insurance companies should be able to ask whether a couple – gay or straight – regularly engages in unsafe sex, then perhaps you have a point. But assuming that gays practice unsafe sex or placing them in a high-risk category is just as discriminatory as telling an African-American they cannot be insured simply because they are African-Americans.

    Then it appears you have not done your research. If we break it down honestly, what you might have is more discrimination amongst gay men, but not so much gay women. Why? Men (heterosexual or otherwise) are statistically more sexually aggressive and more likely to take unnecessary risks (which is why they are charged more for auto insurance). Add that with the fact that certain sexual activities specific to homosexual men remain the biggest risk for certain diseases, what you really have is a recipe for disaster that really isn’t based on orientation as much as it is based on being male.

    It only appears to be discrimination when you fail to recognize that gay men have other attributes—aside from their orientation—that put them in high-risk categories. Gay men have joked with me that heterosexual men would get laid more if it weren’t for the many “No” answers they get from women.

    As far as your comparison, seeing as how African American men are at higher risk for heart disease than are their white counter-parts, using their race as a determination without any questions would be quite reasonable as well.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Here is a reposting of my points from another forum; if there is any elaboration needed, let me know:

    1: I favor the Fair Tax, so any tax related concerns regarding same-sex versus opposing-sex are done, thrown right out the window. You purchase, you’re taxed, period.

    2: I favor personal rights. Ergo, if I’m the patient in a hospital, it is up to me and me alone who comes and visits—be it my wife, brother, mother, father, female lover, male lover or some bum I met two days prior. This eliminates hopsital visitation concerns (NOTE: A civil union like a marriage may offer the benefits of decision making during critical times).

    3: My belongings are just that, mine. I carry the same rights to designate them to whomever I choose the same as in point number two.

    4: Insurance. Well, okay gay persons might be screwed here. As I see it, insurance is a business and I still believe in the right to choose whom you do and do not do business with. This means if insurance companies wish to refrain from insuring smokers, fat people or homosexuals (not making a correlation between the three) that is their business. However, in the free market it would be unlikely that someone wouldn’t come along and wish to get some of the action from the gay community by insuring them (sort of similar to what Chemistry.com did when Eharmony had the gay-fallout).
    I agree with you on most issues (but feel that gays should be able to get a fair insurance deal too (unless they have a proven health risk).
    So dont see how 2 people getting married is a selfish wish?
    you could argue it is, but then it would apply to straigh marriages too..

    Isnt it more selfish to deny a group of the same rights you have purely on their choice of partner?
    What would you think would happen is we say asian people are not allowed to have a full mariage, that would be insane.. so how is this difference for gay people?
    The only thing different is that some book(s) say it is a sin to choose a same sex partner...
    To me that isnt a logical reason...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]


    Then it appears you have not done your research. If we break it down honestly, what you might have is more discrimination amongst gay men, but not so much gay women. Why? Men (heterosexual or otherwise) are statistically more sexually aggressive and more likely to take unnecessary risks (which is why they are charged more for auto insurance). Add that with the fact that certain sexual activities specific to homosexual men remain the biggest risk for certain diseases, what you really have is a recipe for disaster that really isn’t based on orientation as much as it is based on being male.

    It only appears to be discrimination when you fail to recognize that gay men have other attributes—aside from their orientation—that put them in high-risk categories. Gay men have joked with me that heterosexual men would get laid more if it weren’t for the many “No” answers they get from women.
    Fair point, buy by entering a stable marriage you would take away most of those risks, that is the whole point of a marriage isnt it? having a monogamous relationship with your spouse?
    So if a gay couple is 'clean' when they get married their chances of staying 'clean' would be about the same as a straight couple I'd say..

    (with single gays I agree the risk is probably a lot higher)
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toolkit
    I agree with you on most issues (but feel that gays should be able to get a fair insurance deal too (unless they have a proven health risk).


    I agree, a fair insurance deal. Which means insurance companies must have the right to either deny insurance or charge higher based on various factors.

    So dont see how 2 people getting married is a selfish wish?
    you could argue it is, but then it would apply to straigh marriages too..
    Ahh, but I never said two people getting married was a selfish wish. What I did say was:

    arguments for same-sex marriage, are selfish when placed against society as a whole.”


    Those arguments tend to revolve around hospital visitation/medical decisions, wills and insurance, where gay persons are simply not the only ones left short. Other arguments are based on emotion and are futile when it comes to the law and what privileges people ought to have.

    Isnt it more selfish to deny a group of the same rights you have purely on their choice of partner?


    Well for starters, I don’t really look at marriage as an inherent right. I do see it as beneficial to society on a community level as well as an individual one and thus something worthy of promoting. That said, we already deny marriage; I am not permitted to marry someone who is underage, not of sound mind to make legal decisions, multiple women, my sister and so forth, so the concept of choice of partner is rather arbitrary.

    Second, as stated previously I am quite accepting of same-sex unions.

    Third, in addition to same-sex unions, my argument as a whole actually bestows the same privileges to everyone. While it may seem my insurance concept is actually negating privileges, I am not advocating that gay couples not get insurance, but that insurance companies be the sole decision makers regarding what they will and will not offer—which extends to heterosexual couples as well.

    What would you think would happen is we say asian people are not allowed to have a full mariage, that would be insane.. so how is this difference for gay people?


    It would be insane; unfortunately I do not have to answer for such a concept, as I am not denying a “full marriage” to anyone. I am saying that some revamping is in order.

    Fair point, buy by entering a stable marriage you would take away most of those risks, that is the whole point of a marriage isnt it? having a monogamous relationship with your spouse?


    And again, if an insurance company wishes to extend benefits to a same-sex couple who has legal documentation of their commitment, that is up to them. However; if they so choose to only offer benefits to heterosexual couples, that again is their business.


    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions