posted
awww! they look so cute and happy! I wanna get married.... but first.... I'd have to meet someone...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, that one. I had forgotten about it. I don't think anyone seriously thinks Lincoln made any statements on the matter, and as such it should be construed as someone saying what they think Lincoln would say. Of course, they're probably (though not necessarily, Lincoln was an odd sort of person) wrong, but I'm willing to attribute it to overexuberance. Also, I'd bet that Lincoln very well might say it if he were still alive today (that is, he had lived through modern developments in society).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, that's beautiful. I don't usually get emotionally involved in weddings, but what these people are going through so their love won't be legally persecuted... They're heroes. San Francisco's going to be famous for this, as will Massachusetts.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Methinks especially since 9/11 the word 'Hero' has been thrown around like toilet paper the night before Halloween.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As do I, but unlike false instances -- say, Bush -- these people are heroes. At least, they are if you consider Rosa Parks to be a heroine.
It really comes down to how much you revere the civil rights movement, really. If Rosa Parks was just another nigger woman acting uppity to someone, sure, they're unlikely to consider her a woman. If you look at the symbolism of her defiance, well, she turns out to be a bit more.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: but what these people are going through so their love won't be legally persecuted... They're heroes.
Yes, but if you're referring to the people pictured in this thread - they're celebrating in the immediate aftermath of the victory. Well, we can get married now, so quick, lets do it before they law gets changed.
That would be like if (hypothetically) some mayor decided that in the town of Macon, Georgia 18 year olds could now buy Alcohol. It's pretty obvious that the law will probably be repealed soon, but there is a slight chance that it won't. So the 18 year olds who go out victoriously to legally purchase beer while they can - are they heroes too? Sure, they could always drink the beer before, but now they could do it LEGALLY! They're celebrating their newfound and long-deserved RIGHT!
They're Heroes...right?
---
I know it's not a perfect analogy. Yes, they'll 'eventually' be to the age where the right is given to them. But it is the first thing that came to mind. I don't think it renders the analogy moot.
posted
Love of alcohol isn't the same as love between two people (and I'm not talking eros, either).
And the alcohol is consumed while a marriage is more permanent (in theory, for either homosexual or heterosexual couples).
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: At least, they are if you consider Rosa Parks to be a heroine.
These people got married after the law-waysiding decision was made, in an open window. There was no law protecting Rosa Parks. She was resisting an unjust system - these are basking in a temporary victory.
There's a difference between those who fight, and who revel in the victory once it's already won.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Love of alcohol isn't the same as love between two people
That isn't the point I'm discussing... I'm discussing what constitutes a hero - a fighter, or a reveler.
But then again, Lalo is known for throwing words around. Anyone who disagrees with him is a 'bigot', afterall.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So you'd be willing to call the mayor San Francisco a hero?
Let's put it this way - I'd have less of a problem with you or Lalo calling the Mayor a hero, because you agree with what he did actually fight and circumvent legal channels for. So I would fully understand, from your personal point of view, him being seen as a hero.
Put another way, for those fighting for this legal right - yes. He is a hero.
posted
I know this isn't really a homosexual marriage thread, but I just want someone to tell me exactly why homosexual couples need legal marriages. No that's not a statment that really means that they in fact don't need them and will not benefit from them, it's an actual question, or request anyways.
That list is not exhaustive, it completely leaves asides many rights wrt children. Also, it is a list of rights which cannot be replicated at all; other rights can be replicated in certain situations, for instance with court approval. For instance, if one member of a lesbian couple were to get pregnant through artificial insemination the other member of the couple would not be a parent under the law without a court order granting them guardianship, which can be hard or impossible to get depending on state. In a marriage, the partner would get those rights immediately, without having to go through the ordeal of court proceedings to give them rights to be their child's parent.
Then there's things like social security and veteran's benefits -- in particular the inability of a member of a gay couple who has lived their life with their partner to receive any benefits from their partner having risked his or her life in service of this country appalls me.
And then there's the ability to help a foreign born spouse get citizenship -- if a homosexual person and someone from another country wish to live their lives together in the US, the US says get in line with everybody else, but when heterosexual people make the same decision they get moved to the front of the line.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there anything there that's not legal rights? Meaning, is the desire to have a marriage recognizied by the goverment come from any non-legal issues?
posted
Hobbes, are you referring to the natural desire to have equal rights? If not that, I'm at a loss at what you're trying to suggest -- unless, of course, you mean that homosexual people want the same rights as heterosexual people so they can marry the person they love. Which is a pretty damn important non-legal reason to get married nowadays, or so I hear.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm asking Lalo, is if the desire to have a goverment recognizied marriage is strictly so that they will have all the (strictly) legal benifits that any other married couple has. If doing so would satisfy them even if it weren't called marriage.
In other words, if they could get all those rights handed to them on a platter but nothing else with it (no titles and what-not) would that satisfy the homosexual community or is there something else they're after?
quote:In other words, if they could get all those rights handed to them on a platter but nothing else with it (no titles and what-not) would that satisfy the homosexual community or is there something else they're after?
I doubt homosexual people act as a unit, but speaking as a firm supporter of equal rights -- no, a "seperate but equal" status wouldn't cut it for me. Either everyone gets marriage, or everyone gets civil unions. It's not equality otherwise -- legal endorsement of segregation fifty years ago was just a euphemism for legal recognition that certain classes were inferior, less equal than others, and it works exactly the same way today.
I'm rather curious, Hobbes, how you would feel if the government granted everyone but Mormons marriage, and left the LDS church with a legal contract celebrated by anti-LDS demonstrators as less equal than the marriage contract. If you sign on the dotted line, your partner in this contract will inherit your vehicle(s) and house(s), but the government won't recognize Mormon marriages as equal to everyone else's. Would you really put up with that kind of blatant prejudice?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, when I try to speak consicley I tend to group things and people. Sorry.
First off, Lalo, I'm trying not to load my questions, so if they sound like an attack, I'm once again, sorry. They weren't supposed to be leading questions.
I'm not sure how good that analogy is Lalo, but I'll go with it. If the goverment did that I would first think that was really werid (what would be the point?) and then I would certainly think it was unfair. But I doubt I'd do much. My marriage is what I (and my spouse) make it, not what words the goverment wrote down on paper to confirm it. I really don't think I would do much about it. Besides which maybe the Church would finally get some sympathy from the liberals for being discriminated against.
posted
Supporters of equal rights are split on that issue. Some want consider civil unions to be sufficient; they often feel that the fact that they love and have committed to each other takes care of non legal aspects. Others want marriage in name and deed, because they agree that, in the words of the Massachusetts Supreme Court "[t]he history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal", and that civil unions would always amount to second class marriages in the eyes of society as long as they were not real marriages.
The third camp is somewhat of a mixture. They want marriage, but are willing to settle in the short term for civil unions. I'm in this third camp. As far as I'm concerned, two people who choose to live their lives together and want to assume the responsibilities that entails to each other and to society are married, and should be termed as such by society. Saying that their relationship is a civil union amounts to saying it is not special enough to be called marriage, which is an insult to their love and devotion, but good things often only come in small doses, which when taken regularly often lead to much bigger good things. As such, I focus primarily on the legal rights involved; given those, when society doesn't come tumbling down as some people on this very board have predicted, marriage will come with time.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the government recognizes inheritance and guardianship rights and all the other legal things, what else is there to recognize about a marriage, in the government's eyes?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I kind of think that the LDS Church would enjoy the distinction of having our marriage practices singled out for attention Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, I'm not so sure it's in the interest of marriage sanctity to terminate the marriages that have occured. Much like I wouldn't want the hypothetical Arab who joins the LDS church to have to divorce his 3 additional wives.
But I still think the will of the people in states where gay marriage is restricted should be honored. I supposed if MA and CA don't agree they can secede.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
SO, fugu, how do you feel about common law marriages? Three are lots of legal rights for couples who never officially got married. Are common law marriages second class?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:EDIT: Hobbes, I may groan at your engineering jokes, but you're still the man in my book.
quote:two people who choose to live their lives together and want to assume the responsibilities that entails to each other and to society are married, and should be termed as such by society.
I respect that desire, but I think that trying to enforce it through legal means is doing exactly what the homosexual marriage camp is fighting against. What right does the goverment have to decide what society accepts? (Not saying you thought they do, just pointing out I think they don't ).
posted
...pooka, how can you possibly draw the belief that homosexuality is a religion out of an analogy between two hypothetical persecution standards?
The same goes for you, too, Taal. As I said above, I compare homosexuality and the LDS church in terms of hypothetical legal persecution, not in terms of their inherent equality. You're really reaching for that one, dude.
Hobbes, good point. So you don't think civil rights activists should've marched against the original American segregation? After all, our lives are what we make them -- regardless of where we sit on the bus or where we use the bathrooms, our lives are our own to rule, and not legitimized by what a government writes down on a piece of paper. Right?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I support civil unions for heterosexuals. The thread kind of faded away where we were discussing common law marriage, and that kind of struck me as what could be done about that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- two people who choose to live their lives together and want to assume the responsibilities that entails to each other and to society are married, and should be termed as such by society. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I respect that desire, but I think that trying to enforce it through legal means is doing exactly what the homosexual marriage camp is fighting against. What right does the goverment have to decide what society accepts? (Not saying you thought they do, just pointing out I think they don't ).
You're contradicting yourself, dude. The government is specifically dictating what's acceptable and what's not by dictating seperate-but-equal civil unions for homosexuals. The exact opposite of legislating morality would be the granting of equal rights to all monogamous couples, regardless of popular prejudice. That would be the end of the government deciding what society should find acceptable or not, at least on this issue.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
we're really reaching, and yet Taal and I read that same conclusion from your post.
Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is very pivotal to the ethics of this. But it is in their interest never to have that question answered so they can be offended by everything anyone says as they choose.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you understood what I said Lalo, sorry I'll try to be clearer. ... And after typing out a few things I realzied my response will be way too long and I've already written part of it in a cousin Hobbes thread so I'm going to finish that up and post it. Sorry for the cop-out, I promise it isn't permanent!
posted
I guess what bothers me is that the sexual revolution was all about calling marriage alternately a prison and a mere piece of paper. But when it's time for gays to marry, it's an enviable and cherished state. It seems some folks only want what they cannot have...
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, if it comes to the government granting equal rights regardless of popular prejudice, then why exclude from official recognition those relationship that are not monogamous or between only two people?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also....if we live in a democracy, then whatever prejudice is popular is the one that guides in making laws, right?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if two people believe it's not reaching to draw the conclusion that homosexuality's a religion out of an analogy comparing the legal persecution of each, I guess it must not be.
No, choice or genetic imperative have nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality. Regardless of whether or not it's genetic (which is a case supported by virtually everyone with life or lab experience with homosexuality) or a preference (a case supported by those who want to believe homosexuality's a sin), people can marry whomever they love. If I love an Latina, even if her genetic identity's similar to my own and thus less preferable in terms of spreading my gene pool as far apart as possible, I still have the right to marry her. If I love a woman or a man, I should have the right to marry him/her if we both feel we want to commit to a lifelong relationship. Where's the immorality, Pooka?
posted
Just because I'm the result of a mixed marriage doesn't mean I think it's the best idea. I used to feel kind of victimized about it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo, if it comes to the government granting equal rights regardless of popular prejudice, then why exclude from official recognition those relationship that are not monogamous or between only two people?
Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. While many people on this board have made the argument that we should trust of-age, committed people to choose their own relationships as regarding polygamy -- a philosophy I don't disagree with -- polygamy has no weight in a monogamy issue. Feel free to champion polygamy after we succeed ending the bigoted monogamy laws, but I'm willing to take this a step at a time.
quote:Also....if we live in a democracy, then whatever prejudice is popular is the one that guides in making laws, right?
Sure. Only, you can't have both "majority says so, so you're inferior citizens" and guarantee equal rights under the law for every citizen in the same breath. Treat everyone equally, or at least have the spine to be honest about bigotry and rewrite the Constitution to say that everyone but homosexuals are entitled to equal rights under the law. Consistency's all I'm asking for.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the problems with addressing the idea of homosexual marriage is the fact that none of the analogies work, politically. Or, in some cases, even logically.
We've just seen a comparison to a religion — a consciously chosen set of beliefs. Not attractive to gay advocates.
This also gets compared a lot with the fight for equal civil rights for different races and ethnicities. But homosexuality isn't any of those, either. Whether it has a genetic component in some cases or not, it is an overwhelmingly psychological phenomenon, and the gay community is composed of many separate individuals from vastly different heritages.
Can we compare it to other psychological phenomena that involve an altered self-image or a sexual appetite that contradicts the human breeding process? Not effectively, because most of those are considered overwhelmingly pejorative or absurd. Anorexia, for instance, or pedophilia, or bestiality, are all largely recognized to be harmful or unwell, and if you try to compare homosexuality to them, you're immediately labeled as a bigot.
You've heard the ridicule whenever someone tries to say, "Next, people will be marrying their pets, for crying out loud!" That's unspeakably offensive, right? What, are you saying that gays are like ANIMALS? These are HUMAN BEINGS, you bigoted bastard!
You see why this is so hard? At least the way much of our culture looks at the issue, homosexuality is a completely unique phenomenon with no useful analogies that don't either miss the mark (in the case of race), offend (in the case of other psychological phenomena), or both (in the case of religion).
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
).![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
