Gay marriage (split thread)

[Mystech]

Arizona huh? Maybe you should do a bit of investigating and BTW have your Google fixed.(sic)

In September, 1991, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 1396, which required public schools to provide annual AIDS instruction in grades k-12. During its brief existence, SB 1396 required that, while each district was "free" to develop its own course of study for each grade, such curricula must be age-appropriate, medically accurate, address modes of AIDS transmission, and emphasize abstinence and the prevention of drug use. The bill was rescinded in 1995. Also in 1995, Arizona passed State Senate Bill 1348, which bans each district in the state from including a course of study that "promotes a homosexual lifestyle;" "portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle;" or "suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex."

http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Handbook/States/arizona.html

I'll make you a deal, I'll have google fixed, and you read your own links.

as for the rest we have:

http://www.atgpress.com/atgpress/edu/edu044.htm

Childrens books about kids with two mommies and daddies. Gotta' get people started on homosexuality young I guess, and the best way to do that is for kids to know understand that their insulated lives could be torn apart at any minuet by the fact that not everyone's family are structured in the same way.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Educa..._in_Schools.htm

Children have a political debate about issues recently in the news. . .bad form educators!

http://www.sabes.org/resources/brig.../vol9/b3lit.htm

Gay teacher wants to start a class about homosexuals and homosexuality throughout history. That's powerfully subversive I think, nearly as preposterous as teaching kids that women or black people existed before 1960.

http://www.earthgarden.com.au/ad_info/Demographics.doc.

An essay put out by some University "teaching fellow" in Australia about results of some "Earth Garden" readership survey. I fail to see how it is exactly relevant.

You can keep looking you know, I'm sure the glorification of homosexuals must exist somewhere in US schools, and if so then I'm sure someone has written something about it and published it on the net.

I do get testy when somebody with no knowledge of me refers to me as a numbskull.

Terrably sorry about the confusion then, MacM, but all that I know of you is what you show me.

 

[Repo Man]

I wouldn't be so sure about the grandkids. From what I can tell about your attitude, you're the last person they would tell.

Lets see: Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

From Websters.

You'd be disappointed if a grandchild (or a great grandchild presumably) were gay. But you're not prejudiced. That's kind of like "I think blacks are ok, but I don't believe in race mixing". Disappointment means disapproval, which means you think less of gays than straights. You may as well be honest with yourself and admit it.

 

[Facial]

I'm straight, but I think nothing's wrong with gay marriage.

I stand for the recognition of gay marriage.

 

[Mystech]

I'm straight, but I think nothing's wrong with gay marriage.

I stand for the recognition of gay marriage.

Good thing, because resistance is futile. The homosexual agenda has you all in it's sights, you will be assimilated.

It'd be nice if there truly was something so simple and encompassing as a homosexual agenda, it'd give me something to do on Friday nights, and I wouldn't have to get in awkward arguments with ill-informed gay friends who don't support that Same-sex marriage because they think it means forcing southern Baptist ministers to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

We could all get together in secret in some dark castle somewhere in, say Europe (it seems like a good place for castles), and plan on new and devious ways to subvert traditional Christian morals, and then e-mail the game plan to every male dancer and hair dresser and female Marine and construction worker in the world so that we can all have our talking points and bulleted action items clearly laid out. No, instead we are crippled by a severe lack of vision, and as such seem to revert to the almost laughably simplistic goals of having equal legal protections (Ie, no more specific legal discrimination) and getting folks to stop trying to beat us to death as they are sometimes wont to do, as any individual simpleton would likely dream of. How unorganized and base.

 

[c20H25N3o]

A good question to ask here would be "Why do homosexuals feel that they must conform to a man made law?"
If they truly love each other as men and are consenting with eachother sexually then surely that would be enough for them? Why would they worry about the law that other men have made? The law must have been written down by heterosexual men who do not understand the union between a man and a man! Why would they care what those men had written down? Surely they are justified in their love for eachother without needing 'consent'.
Could someone please explain why the law even applies here?

Thanks

c20

 

[Asguard]

errr because we all must live UNDER man made law?

and those laws effect ALL of us

i cant deside tax laws are wrong and so i wont pay tax, the goverment has many ways to force there opinions on all of us

 

[c20H25N3o]

errr because we all must live UNDER man made law?

and those laws effect ALL of us

i cant deside tax laws are wrong and so i wont pay tax, the goverment has many ways to force there opinions on all of us

So pay the governement what is theirs! Still I ask the question ... How does this affect the decsions made by gay people?

peace

c20

 

[Mystech]

A good question to ask here would be "Why do homosexuals feel that they must conform to a man made law?"

What man made law are you talking about? Generally people feel they need to conform to man made laws because man made guns held by men who enforce the laws are waiting to grab you and throw you in man made prisons of concrete and iron bars

If they truly love each other as men and are consenting with eachother sexually then surely that would be enough for them?

Love eachother as men, or as women. People always forget lesbians. . . except for horny straight guys.

Anyway, why should homosexuals want protected legal marriage? Because we already engage in relationships just like those which have been deemed befitting of legal protection, and so we want inclusion, and especially those legal rights which are afforded to the institution so that joint property rights, hospital visitations, estate management and the like are a lot easier

The law must have been written down by heterosexual men who do not understand the union between a man and a man! Why would they care what those men had written down? Surely they are justified in their love for eachother without needing 'consent'.

Why does anyone want to get married? Homosexuals want it for the same reason homosexuals want it.

You talk as if homosexuals exist in some void outside of regular heterosexual culture, and this simply isn't true. We are subject to the exact same influences, desires and biases as anyone else in our culture. Part of that is wanting to engage in a long term monogamous relationship with the one you love, and not to be spat in the face or shunned because of it.

Could someone please explain why the law even applies here?

It's not at all complicated if you take a moment to give the slightest bit of thought to the matter.

 

[c20H25N3o]

But the law is for the lawless, not for those who live in love since to love one another is fulfillment of the law! So what is the issue here?
If it became lawless for a man to marry a woman and yet I still felt compelled to be with that woman then I choose her. That is my perogative independant of any law. If she accepts my love then we are married from that moment if our love is faithful and true. I am only concerned about the law if I desire more money from tax savings but surely the tax benefits to a marraige are to help that marraige bear fruit. The tax benefits are their in support of family.
Now since it is impossible for two gay people to represent or bear fruit commensurate with the notion of family one may assume that the tax benefits do not apply here. But if both gay men do what they do in clear concious then they have no need for tax benefits that are to do with supporting families because they themselves may never support a family in and of themselves. They have not been made that way. This is not to condemn either individual but to rather point out the cold hard truth of the matter.
Sure you might say that there are plenty of married heterosexual couples who dont wish to start a family however this is their choice. God it would seem has not made the same choice possible for two men or two women for that matter to have babies in and of themselves. It would seem therefore that the heterosexual couple are favoured in life. This would make sense seeing that God calls the act of homosexuality an abomination. Please note that I did not say that God hates a gay person. God does not hate a gay person anymore than I would hate a gay person. However I as a heterosexual man with brothers and a wife and children both male and female may say with clear conscience that I too find the whole homosexual act an abomination to me as well. There is no condemnation of individuals. I merely state that I find the act an abomination. I could never willingly take part in such an act but some men can and that is up to them. I just find it a bit sad that you would not consider the love you have for eachother worth more than the judgement of the authorities and the ultimate loss of about $400 dollars a year in tax breaks. Surely it isnt worth worrying about? Your love for eachother should be sufficient. One of you is not going to have to give up work to have a baby that you have reared. There is no need to prepare for any such eventuality. Why should tax concessions be made therefore?

Thanks

c20

 

[Mystech]

But the law is for the lawless, not for those who live in love since to love one another is fulfillment of the law! So what is the issue here?
If it became lawless for a man to marry a woman and yet I still felt compelled to be with that woman then I choose her. That is my perogative independant of any law. If she accepts my love then we are married from that moment if our love is faithful and true.

That's a beautiful sentiment, but try telling that to a health care provider or a lawyer.

I am only concerned about the law if I desire more money from tax savings but surely the tax benefits to a marraige are to help that marraige bear fruit. The tax benefits are their in support of family.

This is a pretty lame post-hoc rationalization. Where, in any legal document does it claim that this is the case? And if it did, then why are infertile couples still afforded the same rights as everyone else? It may have sounded good in your head, but we're dealing with facts here, not romantic sentiment and on the spot ad-hoc rationalization.

Now since it is impossible for two gay people to represent or bear fruit commensurate with the notion of family one may assume that the tax benefits do not apply here. But if both gay men do what they do in clear concious then they have no need for tax benefits that are to do with supporting families because they themselves may never support a family in and of themselves.

I should remind you again that this deals with homosexual women just as much as men. I should have realized that your motives for creating such a flimsy argument the first time you messed that up. . . why is it always the goddy ones who seem to have such an extreme focus on gay men?

Anyhow, your ascertain here is incorrect for the reasons stated above, tax incentives are not provided in order for people to make babies. Also, I find your ascertain that a gay couple can not start a family to be ignorant at best and offensive at worst. Should I perhaps tell this to all of the two father/two mother families I know out there? Like it or not homosexuals are raising children, be it through adoption or a previous heterosexual union. And like it or not the lack of legal protection for homosexual couples does affect homosexual families.

God it would seem has not made the same choice possible for two men or two women for that matter to have babies in and of themselves. It would seem therefore that the heterosexual couple are favoured in life. This would make sense seeing that God calls the act of homosexuality an abomination.

Oooh I see. . . you're a heterosexist. Haha, and people hate gays for "shoving it in your face". Whatever, pall, you're entitled to believe in whatever silliness you like, but please recognize that your reasoning is flimsy at best, and your arbitrary sentiments don't make for a good legal foundation for discrimination.

Also, for argumentativeness sake, yes the old testament does condemn homosexuality as an abomination, but in the same passage it condemns shell fish as being an abomination five times. . . does that mean God dislikes shellfish five times more than homosexuality? Also do your best to avoid talking to people who wear fabrics woven of two cloths, god apparently has something against them as well if Leviticus is to be any indicator.

Please note that I did not say that God hates a gay person. God does not hate a gay person anymore than I would hate a gay person.

That's actually reassuring, thank you. But is God also as pedantic condescending as you are?

However I as a heterosexual man with brothers and a wife and children both male and female may say with clear conscience that I too find the whole homosexual act an abomination to me as well.

Too bad, we're looking to make it manditory, you know.

I just find it a bit sad that you would not consider the love you have for eachother worth more than the judgement of the authorities and the ultimate loss of about $400 dollars a year in tax breaks. Surely it isnt worth worrying about? Your love for eachother should be sufficient.

Sufficient for what? To pacify us and keep us from getting too uppity about our rights? You talk as if homosexuals don’t want to engage in loving long term monogamous relationships with eachother unless there is law to protect it. This is absurd of course. Regardless of legal recognition these relationships exist and will continue to exist. It is because of that fact that we seek legal protection: the requirements which were deemed worthy of certain legal considerations are already there, now we just want to claim what is due to us.

Given the choice between equal protection under the law, one of the great promises of our natoin (what we seek), and second class citizenship (what we have) which would you chose?

One of you is not going to have to give up work to have a baby that you have reared. There is no need to prepare for any such eventuality. Why should tax concessions be made therefore?

Nor can a heterosexual couple who don't intend to, or simply can not have a child be denied a legal marriage and all of the legal considerations which go along with it. Viewing these tax breaks as entirely pregnancy based is also fallacious, and I'd defy you to point me to any legal document which claims this. Also, leaving work to raise a child is just as much a possibility in a homosexual marriage as in a heterosexual one.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Tell me ... two men are flatmates. They live together and share everything together. They cut the bills in half and pay what they must to survive.
Why are these men not due a tax break? They live together! Why would they be discriminated against just because they dont have sex together? Why are these men who live in love and support the common cause not arguing for a tax break as 'partners' given that their lives reveal a male/male partnership? Are you arguing the case for those heterosexual men too? If you are not I am concerned for your motives!

peace

c20

 

[Mystech]

By some co-habitation laws they may be entitled to certain legal entitlements, actually, but I don't think that answer fully addresses the spirit of your question.

By law marriage is a contract where there's at the very least some promise of long term commitment. Taking that step shows that this is the person you trust more than anyone else and you intend to stay together for the rest of your lives. Flatmates, however are prone to move out for any of varying economic reasons, or even add a few more people to the mix. The nature of the relationship simply isn't the same at all. There's no guarantee that these guys even really know eachother very well, let alone that one should be the next of kin of the other.

 

[c20H25N3o]

So you are saying effectivly that tax concessions should be made to gay people who live together rather than straight men who live together because the gay couple are likely to be more commited to eachother? You say ...

There's no guarantee that these guys even really know eachother very well, let alone that one should be the next of kin of the other.

Well the law says the same of all couples because it cannot be biased one way or other. Who is to say that gay men are more faithful to the cause than hetero flat mates? It is absurd to assume that because life would paint a very different picture the world over. In some cases your view would be justified but in many other cases it would not! The law must be consistent in order for it to be effective.
The law is based upon two commandments i.e.

Love God with your whole strength, mind and soul and the second is like it i.e.
Love your neighbour as thyself.

Why then would you consider yourself more worthy of a tax break than the heterosexual man who lives by the same flat-sharing rules except he revers God and refuses to touch another man in a sexual way because He understands that to do so is an abomination to the God he loves first?
Again I say "I do not come to judge the homosexual but rather to save him"

peace

c20

 

[Tiassa]

Why are these men not due a tax break? They live together! Why would they be discriminated against just because they dont have sex together?

Is that all marriage is? Having sex?

Why are these men who live in love and support the common cause not arguing for a tax break as 'partners' given that their lives reveal a male/male partnership? Are you arguing the case for those heterosexual men too? If you are not I am concerned for your motives!

If those men wish to enter into an exclusive contract between themselves, then they ought to be able to.

If those men do not wish to enter into an exclusive contract, I don't see the problem. Men and women cohabitate without claiming marriage.

We had a case in Pierce County, Washington, a few years ago, in which a gay man died, and his life partner of thirty years was denied his estate. The two had never sat down and written a will, and upon the one's death, the very family which had disowned him for his homosexuality in his teen years stepped up and claimed his estate. The judge apologized to the partner; the court had no legal recourse to do what was actually right.

Imagine a man lying in a hospital. He is injured, sick, depressed, and alone. His woman comes to visit him, but is turned away. As his life partner, as one who is the person he has come to rely on, she is not allowed to visit him in the hospital.

If they merely live together, she will not be allowed. But if she is his wife, she will be allowed to see him.

Imagine if your life partner couldn't come and see you in the hospital. Imagine your adopted son being able to visit you, but his other parent--your partner--not being allowed in.

If the two housemates wish to invest this much in each other, they ought to be allowed to. If they wish to enter into that exclusive contract, they ought to be allowed to.

Short of that, however, they're merely housemates. According to your example, why should those men be given a tax break when opposite-sex housemates are not?

Because, just like a boyfriend and girlfriend holding hands, they haven't entered into a specific contract called marriage.

So you are saying effectivly that tax concessions should be made to gay people who live together rather than straight men who live together because the gay couple are likely to be more commited to eachother?

And picking up on this portion to reiterate: The mere housemates have not entered into a legally-binding exclusive contract that joins them under the law.

Are you, c20H25N3o, claiming that any cohabitating persons ought to be able to claim the same status as those who have entered into a specific contract?

Well the law says the same of all couples because it cannot be biased one way or other.

Is there a difference between a couple and a pair? Is there a difference between partners and housemates? Is there a difference between someone who has signed on the dotted line and pledged that commitment to their partner, and someone who is living with his buddy because it cuts costs?

Understand, please, c20H25N3o, yes, the gay marriage movement does speak for those theoretical flatmates you mention: If they wish to enter into a marriage contract, they ought to be allowed to.

Just out of curiosity, are you married? I'm not. And I hope never to be, to anyone of either gender. Frankly, I think this whole marriage thing is silly, but as long as we're going to have it, the law must treat it properly.

But the reason I ask if you're married is because married people, at their wedding, come together and recite promises to one another in the company of witnesses. They change their legal status as regards each other and society at large.

If your theoretical flatmates wish to make those promises to each other, and wish to alter their legal status accordingly, they ought to be able to.

Why then would you consider yourself more worthy of a tax break than the heterosexual man who lives by the same flat-sharing rules except he revers God and refuses to touch another man in a sexual way because He understands that to do so is an abomination to the God he loves first?

Do you consider yourself more worthy of a paycheck than a man who does not go to work? (This question, of course, presumes that you labor for money.)

If your answer in any way reflects the idea that, "Yes, a working person deserves a paycheck for their labors more than someone who does not labor," well, there you'll be seeing the basic problem you've presented.

Because I can claim, just as superficially as your flatmate example, that the man who doesn't labor is just as deserving of a paycheck.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Because I can claim, just as superficially as your flatmate example, that the man who doesn't labor is just as deserving of a paycheck.[/i]

I refute that completely. If you are fit to work and you dont then you dont deserve to eat. By refusing to 'labor' you stand apart from those men who are willing to get dirty for the 'common good'. You are saying as the non-laborer - this work is beneath me, those other men shall sweat harvesting the fruit of the fields. I shall just eat the fruit of their labours. This cannot be a correct attitude to have in a loving society.
Now if the men of the field feel pity for the man refusing to labour, they may very well offer some of their fruit out of generosity. Hopefully this will shame the lazy man into joining them in the fields next time. If the lazy man does not repent then I am sure that spirit of generosity will turn to one of anger and they will throw that lazy man out of their community just as one removes a bad apple from a barrel to prevent the rest from becoming spoilt.

peace

c20

 

[Tiassa]

If you are fit to work and you dont then you dont deserve to eat. By refusing to 'labor' you stand apart from those men who are willing to get dirty for the 'common good'

So by refusing to enter the arrangement, you disqualify yourself from its benefits?

You are saying as the non-laborer - this work is beneath me, those other men shall sweat harvesting the fruit of the fields. I shall just eat the fruit of their labours. This cannot be a correct attitude to have in a loving society.

Fair 'nuff. But that's the problem with your example comparing mere housemates to committed partners.

Now if the men of the field feel pity for the man refusing to labour, they may very well offer some of their fruit out of generosity. Hopefully this will shame the lazy man into joining them in the fields next time. If the lazy man does not repent then I am sure that spirit of generosity will turn to one of anger and they will throw that lazy man out of their community just as one removes a bad apple from a barrel to prevent the rest from becoming spoilt.

Are you avoiding the issue, or did it just go over your head?

 

[c20H25N3o]

So by refusing to enter the arrangement, you disqualify yourself from its benefits?



Fair 'nuff. But that's the problem with your example comparing mere housemates to committed partners.



Are you avoiding the issue, or did it just go over your head?

Perhaps it went over my head. Please put it in simple terms that I may understand. What are you asking me specifically?

thanks

c20

 

[Tiassa]

(Does a lack of a title make this titless?)

All I'm trying to communicate is that your example of housemates is flawed because the housemates have not entered into a contract. If I am unwilling to do work, if I am unwilling to even do my part and fill out welfare paperwork, should I expect someone to hand me a check?

If those housemates are not willing to enter a contract of marriage, should they expect its benefits?

You're comparing apples to oranges when you juxtapose housemates and life partners.

Where you picked up the railing against the lazy, you seemed to overlook the simpler comparison:

Because I can claim, just as superficially as your flatmate example, that the man who doesn't labor is just as deserving of a paycheck.

That boldfaced portion is the part you seem to have overlooked by digressing as you did. Yes, it is ludicrous to say that you owe someone who doesn't labor for you the same as you owe someone who does. That's the point. That someone who doesn't labor has not entered into the "contract".

Neither have the housemates.

"Superficially" and according to your "flatmate example": That's the problem with the flatmate comparison; it's not valid. If it's valid, so is the declaration that those who don't labor deserve the same as those who do.

The superficial comparison seems to say of marriage: Two people, same gender, same location; therefore, it's the same thing as being married, or ought to be in the eyes of the law. Therein lies the problem: people must consent to marriage.

And between the "marriage penalty" and the "benefits of marriage", something's gotta give. While heterosexuals bemoan the "marriage penalty", gays are actually asking for the chance to be "penalized". Either the marriage penalty or the tax benefits need to disappear from the argument; they're mutually opposed. But that's a side issue for the time being. We can get back to that some other time.

 

[c20H25N3o]

But gay's are only seeking justification by wishing to be penalized. They want everyone around them to say "Oh isnt it wonderful, Bill and John are so happy together" but this cannot be among heterosexuals. Heterosexuals do not care whether gay people have sex or just cuddle or whatever, but a heterosexual man is the way he is and does find same sex relationships between men disgusting as do heterosexual women find same sex relationships between women disgusting. Heterosexual couples with families do not want to expose their children to that which they find disgusting. If the whole world was gay then of course there wouldnt be an issue but this is not how it is! It is neither fair to judge the gay man for his likes and dislikes anymore than it is fair to judge the heterosexual for their likes and dislikes but the fact remains that society at large is overwhelmingly heterosexual and therefore makes its laws according to the common good. Look, when gay people outnumber hetrosexuals then they can take their turn and put tax restrictions on those heterosexual types. That I will call 'fair'. However nature has not provided a way in which that could ever happen since it requires that one be heterosexual in order to bear the fruit of children normally by making 'love'.

peace

c20

 

[Repo Man]

Don't project your disgust at gay people to the population at large. I'm straight, and they don't bother me. I find them kind of amusing at times, and some of the more political ones annoying. Seeing a couple of men kissing in public would still freak me out a little, but that is my problem, not theirs.

Gay people don't hurt anyone, and their only "problem" is caused by religious bigotry.