Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
#51 Old 5th Jul 2010 at 11:50 PM
But marriage isn't a purely religious institution. Marriage exists in every society, including non-religious ones. It is simply another aspect of social interaction. It did evolve alongside religion, but so did a lot of other aspects of society. Religion may well have created the first governments, but governments do not have to be (and usually are not) religious now. Marriage is something that can be updated in the same way. Marriage is about love and stability; there is nothing exclusively religious about it. Considering the number of governmental benefits of marriage, the churches should not have sole say on whether certain people can be married. If the government is going to provide benefits for married couples, it's going to have to stick its fingers into it and regulate it, taking it out of the church's hands. The churches should still have a say in who they want to perform the ceremony for because it is their choice, but there should be options for people who can't find a church to marry them.
Advertisement
Mad Poster
#52 Old 5th Jul 2010 at 11:52 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
Anyway, back on topic, how about the argument that marriage is a religious institution and shouldn't even be recognised by the state, let alone regulated by it. And if religions refuse to acknowledge gay marriage, that's up to them.


Unfortunately, marriages are recognized by the state. Marriage is not solely a religious contract. If your marriage isn't recognized by the state, there are a lot of things you might not be able to do (inherit things from your spouse, visit them in the hospital, get immigration papers... all kinds of stuff).

If religions want to refuse to accept that two people are "married" in the eyes of their church, that's their choice. But they should not have the right to deny people privileges that the government definition of marriage would give them.
Scholar
#53 Old 6th Jul 2010 at 1:39 AM Last edited by Doddibot : 6th Jul 2010 at 4:12 AM. Reason: incapable of grammar, obviously...
You guys are absolutely right that if the government is going to give extra privileges to married folks, then they need to do this fairly. But I was making the point that the government shouldn't regulate marriage or provide benefits for marriage.

So I'm all for gays having all the extra rights of married couples, I just don't think married couples should have any extra rights. I don't care if homosexual marriage is legally recognised because I don't think heterosexual marriage should be legally recognised either.

All of these benefits given to married couples should be separate contracts (much like prenups). I see absolutely no reason that the state should have anything to do with marriage, and given the number of frustrated people unable to marry under the law, plenty of reasons for the state to just butt out of it.
Retired
retired moderator
#54 Old 6th Jul 2010 at 3:38 AM
I am tempted to agree with Doddibot, except that the marriage can be useful for pro-family social planning. Which I think can be an important function of the state. I agree, though, that in anything like it's current form, marriage discriminates against the unmarried in ways that are not really that justifiable.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Scholar
#55 Old 6th Jul 2010 at 7:46 AM
Marriage is usefull in the sense that it fixes all legal issues over kids at once (dads rights, inheritance, adoption etc) which is a big reason people "marry' here. (kids coming age 30 after living together for years). It's practical to have a fix-all-at-once rule, wether its called marriage or not.

For those who hate "marriage" theres "civil partnerships" too, open for both straight and gay "marriage" haters.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Field Researcher
#56 Old 9th Jul 2010 at 5:35 AM
Field Researcher
#57 Old 9th Jul 2010 at 6:50 AM
I have the feeling that the term Civil Unions is an attempt at being Politically Correct "so that way gays have the same benefits as straight people but don't offend those who are uncomfortable and/or against it" . I saw a sign at a gay marriage protest that said I didn"t ask her to civil union me" .

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people!
Field Researcher
#58 Old 9th Jul 2010 at 6:13 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Rectos Dominos
I have the feeling that the term Civil Unions is an attempt at being Politically Correct "so that way gays have the same benefits as straight people but don't offend those who are uncomfortable and/or against it" . I saw a sign at a gay marriage protest that said I didn"t ask her to civil union me" .


While some will say "give them the right, just don't call it marriage", you have the senator of Hawaï who veto civil union bill because it "is essentially marriage by another name" (her exact words).

She's not just against same-sex marriages, she's simply against treating people equally.

EDIT:
Quote: Originally posted by Ledgo
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/ma...iage/index.html

Thoughts?

This post by the prop 8 trial tracker explains what it all means better than I could.

Although I'm not an american citizen, and my word has no weight about the policies, DOMA and DADT have to go.
Field Researcher
#59 Old 10th Jul 2010 at 4:38 AM
I immediately thought of this thread when I saw this cartoon.


There are no stupid questions, just stupid people!
Scholar
#60 Old 10th Jul 2010 at 11:13 AM
Civil unions commonly do not hold all the rights marriages have (like adoption) and are prone to leave dicriminatory rules in. Especially in the semi-theocracy that the USA is. If christians really cant bear the though of calling gay marriage "marriage" lets all call it civil union, straight or gay.

What many USA people also dont get is that a LOT of gay couples ALREADY have children, especially lesbians. Those children are not well off under the current laws. Now a lot of nuts insane christians will rant those children are not well off anyhow.. not realizing THEY are the main reason those kids are bad off in the USA. Its annoying to see so many rant without even LOOKING at existing gay couples with children.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Inventor
#61 Old 10th Jul 2010 at 6:54 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
What many USA people also dont get is that a LOT of gay couples ALREADY have children, especially lesbians.


Vanito, I would like to know where you get your information about these 'many USAians'. You tend to make blanket statements about the USA frequently, and almost always it's based upon your jaded opinion of the United States, not on fact.
Field Researcher
#62 Old 10th Jul 2010 at 7:36 PM
To Vanito's defence, he did say "many" and not "most". I think it's very safe to assume that "many USA people" don't think gay couples already have children, while I agree that if "most" had been used, a link to a statistical source would have been needed, since "most" means "a majority of".
Scholar
#63 Old 11th Jul 2010 at 9:43 AM Last edited by Vanito : 11th Jul 2010 at 10:17 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by Neerie
To Vanito's defence, he did say "many" and not "most". I think it's very safe to assume that "many USA people" don't think gay couples already have children, while I agree that if "most" had been used, a link to a statistical source would have been needed, since "most" means "a majority of".

I volunteered for a year in a USA based disability program and worked with many, many USA people. Many of them are narrowminded and clueless about what the average gay person is like or does. Even a large part of the category that claims to be openminded has a lot of very narrowminded and strange ideas. (compared to what I'm used to - dutch people) I never faced as much prejudice as in the year with USA people.
From all the loads of USA moms, none claims to have gay children. None. (right...) Some were pretty clear how they would deal with gay kids. Of the less evil half still a large group seemed to think homosexuality somehow could be converted. Accepting? Nah.. most would be tolerating at most. (thats how they described it themself) Some of my good USA friends (the more openminded half) were shocked that the army in holland can function without DADT. Gays able to become minister president? BIG shock. Just imagine Pim Fortuyn would have become minister-president. Majority of gay people on TV out of the closet, including very popular singers or news readers? Big shock. Even of the USA people who claim to be openminded many have these idiot ideas.

On this forum its no different with seeing the most idiotic ideas pass along. Sorry but whats posted here frequently does not add much to the idea many USA people know much about gays/bi.

My dislike for the USA in other fields comes from the same source, helping those USA people. The way the USA treats disabled people is a big, big shame.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Instructor
#64 Old 11th Jul 2010 at 2:27 PM
I've lived around these "USA people" for many years and I have a completely different experience, so I think you're generalizing a bit too much.
Field Researcher
#65 Old 11th Jul 2010 at 4:38 PM
It actually depends upon where you live, what the demographic is. Even in Texas, there are small pockets of tolerance, and even acceptance. However, the fact that proposed laws of all stripes that contradict the agenda of the religious right in America are regularly voted down by a substantial margin in predictable geographic areas shows that there's a lot of intolerance in this country.

When people get all the information they need to know from a single media source, and are surrounded by other people who get all the information they need to know from the same source, and they spread it all among their friends, you're going to get a lot of guanophrenia (one of my favorite proposed new words for the OED - push for it! It means "bats**t insane") in a small space.
Lab Assistant
#66 Old 11th Jul 2010 at 5:40 PM
I want to point out something too. Not all GBLT people are amoral, sex obsession, sluts, and so on. So I don't understand why some people thought they are. I do think some GBLT people have their innocent minds and want clean stuff too (arts, porn free, clean romance, etc etc). If straights have good morals and prefer clean stuff, then gays do too. I don't think gay parents always will give a bad influence on their kids. If straights can be good parents, then gays are too! Both straight and gay are absolutely no different. I just don't get people...
Alchemist
#67 Old 12th Jul 2010 at 8:32 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
I volunteered for a year in a USA based disability program and worked with many, many USA people. Many of them are narrowminded and clueless about what the average gay person is like or does. Even a large part of the category that claims to be openminded has a lot of very narrowminded and strange ideas. (compared to what I'm used to - dutch people) I never faced as much prejudice as in the year with USA people.
From all the loads of USA moms, none claims to have gay children. None. (right...) Some were pretty clear how they would deal with gay kids. Of the less evil half still a large group seemed to think homosexuality somehow could be converted. Accepting? Nah.. most would be tolerating at most. (thats how they described it themself) Some of my good USA friends (the more openminded half) were shocked that the army in holland can function without DADT. Gays able to become minister president? BIG shock. Just imagine Pim Fortuyn would have become minister-president. Majority of gay people on TV out of the closet, including very popular singers or news readers? Big shock. Even of the USA people who claim to be openminded many have these idiot ideas.

On this forum its no different with seeing the most idiotic ideas pass along. Sorry but whats posted here frequently does not add much to the idea many USA people know much about gays/bi.

My dislike for the USA in other fields comes from the same source, helping those USA people. The way the USA treats disabled people is a big, big shame.


sorry jooxis, but i have to agree with him.
im no patriot, but i dont hate the country either.
from what ive seen in my town...my town isnt rowdy, and its not a big city. in fact, id say its pinnacle of interest is a mall that really isnt all that large.

now that being said, i have to agree that i am ashamed at how people view difference as unconditionally negative.

hell, sex ed is in the shitter because even "normal" things are somehow construed as taboo and wrong. imagine how much worse people who deviate from that ideal have it. ive seen it first hand.

example is that in one cooking class i took, i was seated next to a disabled boy named Adam.
now, adam was pretty mild as far as disabled people go. i dont know what he had, but he couldnt bend his arm out all the way, was pretty much restrained to an electric wheelchair, and was...less than sharp about certain things. friend guy, though, like a child that just wanted to make people happy.

you wouldnt have known it, though. not by the way people looked at him and whispered about him and said really ignorant, downright mean things about him.
during the time i sat beside him, i wasnt entirely sure of how to regard him either, but after talking with his caretaker i found there really was even less for me to worry about than i had before.
now, did anyone else take the time to ask or listen?
not unless i first 'indicated' in some way that no, he wasnt going to leap out of his chair and start biting people left and right.

it was sad.
it was sad, because this boy was harmless. naturally a cheerful person, from what i could see. maybe a bit slow on the uptake, but there wasnt any of that ill intent to be feared.
yet people still alienated him. treated him like he was a rock or something from a different planet. not even human.

same way people regard most homosexuals ive encountered.
soon as they realize youre gay, either they get the lynchin gear out or they treat you like youre a different species altogether. like you eat different food or have rituals before you go to bed each night to--i dont know, keep The Gay from spreading to the neighborhood. i dont know--point is, what Vanito says is unpleasant.
but its true.
america has a LONG way to go before it can preach an overall tolerance and/or acceptance for those who are naturally different from what is perceived as average.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Scholar
#68 Old 13th Jul 2010 at 2:01 AM
My experiences are quite the opposite. There was a girl in my choir class in high school who was wheelchair-bound. She seemed to be nearly paralyzed because she could only move her arms slightly, very slowly, and very shakily, and couldn't move her legs at all. She was intelligent and extremely nice, though, and everyone in choir liked her. A couple of the other girls would sometimes help her carry her things or open a snack package for her and other things like that. She was treated nicely because she was extremely nice to others.

My high school classmates were nothing like the high school stereotypes; there weren't any cliques, people were generally polite if not downright nice to others, and most people were more worried about grades and extra-curriculars than popularity. I was in a science and tech program, so I realize that it wasn't representative of the general population, but my point is that several hundred students were able to get along together with very little pettiness and intolerance. My high school was able to have a very open gay-straight alliance and I never heard any ill spoken of it. There were several physically handicapped students and a few mentally handicapped students and people were polite to them.

I find college is even better. The people I have met are far too busy with their own goals and responsibilities to devote any time to pettiness. I go to a very culturally diverse school that also has a program that provides a higher education of sorts to mentally handicapped students. Once a year, the gay-straight alliance posts signs all over campus expressing pride for various homosexual historical figures. It's not a utopia, but people are generally polite and sensible here.

I live and go to school on the East Coast, which is generally considered more liberal and diverse. I've never been to the South, which, from my understanding, is where most of the intolerance is, so I don't really see a lot of the intolerance that people complain existing in the US. The legislators haven't really caught up to the general population in tolerance (as demonstrated by the removal of homosexuality as a protected class by the governor of Virginia), but people really don't seem to care that much about other people's quirks here.
Scholar
#69 Old 13th Jul 2010 at 9:37 AM
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
Marriage is not solely a religious contract.


So far, in no country that I've looked up is the institution even remotely a religious contract. No country ( or subsection of one) accepts a marriage as being valid without the properly executed CIVIL documentation.

While a CEREMONY may have religious components, it is not the ceremony that confers the state of being married. In many places, a person performing a ceremony without the civil documentation can be fined and/or imprisioned for "false marriage".

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Test Subject
#70 Old 30th Jul 2010 at 12:16 AM
I have a very diverse and interesting family. Our extended family has members of every race and a various countries. When my sister came out of the closet, the only person to say anything was my grandmother (but she also refused to attend my brother's wedding because my sister-in-law is African-American). Nobody else cared.

My sister is planning to get married in the coming year. The thing is, she still has a husband. They remain married because it allows my sister's girlfriend to have a say if anything happens to my sister. My parents love and support my sister, but she still worries that they may pull something if she is hurt. My sister and brother-in-law are best friends. It's an odd situation, I know, but it is where they find themselves. If my sister could legally get married, this odd situation would disappear.

The really funny thing is that my brother and sister-in-law have had more people say nasty things to them than my sister and her girlfriend. Also, I just have to add that my mother said when she was young it was unheard of for a Protestant to marry a Catholic in her town.

"Now this is good, old-fashioned nightmare fuel." Crow T. Robot
Instructor
#71 Old 30th Jul 2010 at 12:49 PM
I was getting confused trying to detangle all those relationships. . . but it sounds like you have a great family! And aside from grammy, sounds like everybody is adjusting. Which is a telling point--things change as time goes on; the older generation is resistant, but the young people still keep doing their thing.

What's really interesting to me is that the interracial couple gets more comments than the gay couple--are these comments from strangers or people who know y'all?
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#72 Old 30th Jul 2010 at 2:08 PM
Oaktree, Vanito, SuicidiaParasidia etc. - I don't think this phenomenon of some areas being very accepting and some very guanophrenic (thankyou Amtram ) is really restricted to the USA. What you've been describing between you is a global picture - some parts of some countries, like NL and certain parts of the UK, tend to be populated by people who don't really care if a person is gay, straight, disabled or purple; and some others, such as Poland, parts of Spain and, yes, parts of the US are very prone to close-mindedness and irrational phobia of people who are different.

You get those kinds of variations in North America, in Europe, in Africa, and everywhere else; the US is perhaps unusual in that being such a large country, it contains more variation within its own borders than others - it does, after all, cover more than half a continent on its own. I wouldn't say, though, that it's really any more or less tolerant as a whole than most other developed nations; it contains both extremes.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Mad Poster
#73 Old 30th Jul 2010 at 6:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
You get those kinds of variations in North America, in Europe, in Africa, and everywhere else; the US is perhaps unusual in that being such a large country, it contains more variation within its own borders than others - it does, after all, cover more than half a continent on its own. I wouldn't say, though, that it's really any more or less tolerant as a whole than most other developed nations; it contains both extremes.


The U.S. kind of confuses me. I don't understand how the individual states can have so much power that some of them can say yes or no to gay marriage... given that some of the things that are affected by marriage (such as taxes) are governed on a federal level.

So, I mean, I can understand the support for gay marriage being different in different places. It's like that in Canada, even though it's recognized by law in every province. But the legality in the U.S.? Shouldn't that be something that's either yay or nay at the federal level?
Scholar
#74 Old 30th Jul 2010 at 7:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
The U.S. kind of confuses me. I don't understand how the individual states can have so much power that some of them can say yes or no to gay marriage... given that some of the things that are affected by marriage (such as taxes) are governed on a federal level.

So, I mean, I can understand the support for gay marriage being different in different places. It's like that in Canada, even though it's recognized by law in every province. But the legality in the U.S.? Shouldn't that be something that's either yay or nay at the federal level?


The US government is set up so that some things are governed at the state level. This is more efficient, as the state generally has better knowledge of its people's needs than the federal government. Generally the larger and more far-flung the government is, the harder it is to fine tune to the needs of the people. The difficulty is in determining which things are appropriate to govern at state vs. federal level. Everyone has a different opinion, so it's sort of a patchwork of everyone's ideas.
Scholar
#75 Old 30th Jul 2010 at 8:46 PM
@fakepeeps

Though on the other hand, homosexuality could be constitutionally protected; in which case banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, thereby illegal. The US Constitution, of course, applying at a federal level. I think a judge actually ruled that not too long ago.

Ah, here it is: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/ma...iage/index.html

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
 
Page 3 of 17
Back to top