Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Severus_S]

1- again, I think that Marriage is a tradition, and should be left as it is. I think gays should work on improving civil unions, rather than trying to get marriage rights. (Just my opinion, don't say anything sarcastic please, as I am not interested in having them reviewed or used to insult me)

 

You 're avoiding the argument. I conclude You cannot refute it then. Point for me .

(The argument being that traditions should not be kept because tradition in itself is a value)

Edited April 10, 2013 by Severus_S

[KageSora]

Because sometimes you need that comfort and support in public from the one you love?

 

I certainly didn't go off playing tonsil-tennis in public or even in small groups, because there is such thing as too much. But sometimes (and now more than ever) there are times when my insecurities nearly knock me off my feet, and the simple act of a hug and a kiss is enough to ground me and make me feel protected and loved.

I never said I had anything against hugging or "normal" kissing or more tame displays of affection.

 

It's the people who are behaving as if they're about to rip off each other's clothes and screw right there on the sidewalk I have a problem with.

 

I don't think there's a need to have an obscenely heavy make-out session in the middle of a hallway, for example.

 

THAT is where I draw the line.

[Riverwillows]

Actually, to be historically correct, marriages were more often than not, up until the 100 years or so..basically just two people setting up house together. A party was thrown, speeches were made, but no actual vows were taken. Those are purely modern institutions.

 

Even in classic Americana, people in the remoter areas, like the mountains, or farmlands (before there were many roads and cars were too new) often did just that, and if a preacher came to town, well then they'd do it. But otherwise, they just shacked up.

 

Other historical marriages "traditions" were chasing down the woman from a horse, bringing her father something of value and she was then yours, and so on. This is how mankind has acknowledged marriages from the beginning of time.

 

So, your "traditions" argument doesn't hold up. I can hardly consider practices less than 500 years old "tradition" when you look at how long mankind has been around.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Riverwillows

[Mtntopview]

Actually, to be historically correct, marriages were more often than not, up until the 100 years or so..basically just two people setting up house together. A party was thrown, speeches were made, but no actual vows were taken. Those are purely modern institutions.

 

Even in classic Americana, people in the remoter areas, like the mountains, or farmlands (before there were many roads and cars were too new) often did just that, and if a preacher came to town, well then they'd do it. But otherwise, they just shacked up.

 

Other historical marriages "traditions" were chasing down the woman from a horse, bringing her father something of value and she was then yours, and so on. This is how mankind has acknowledged marriages from the beginning of time.

 

So, your "traditions" argument doesn't hold up. I can hardly consider practices less than 500 years old "tradition" when you look at how long mankind has been around.

All good points, but I still think there should be marriage and civil unions. I think civil unions should be improved to be equal to marriages. I am saying that the Christians should be appeased by doing this. (And sorry I'm probably doing a bad job of getting my opinions across)

[ursaasru]

Marriage is not a natural thing I think...it's a law thing...a money thing...a tradition thing... as pointless as I think it is it should be the option for everybody

[Mtntopview]

But if staight couples don't want you in, why harass them! Go create your own thats the same, if not better! (That's what I'd do if I was in the gay communities situation)

[Riverwillows]

But you still don't understand. Saying that heterosexual couples can 'marry', and that gay couples should be satisfied by a civil union, still indicates that there is a 'caste' system, if you will. It gives out that gay couples should be satisfied with a lesser service, and not allowed to make the 'marriage' that hetero couples can. It is still elitism.

 

And while benefits ARE one of the main reasons for the equality argument, that alone will not solve the issue. It is psychological. Why can't two same sex people, enjoy the emotional and mental benefits of a "marriage" ceremony, that hetero couples do? To say to them, you can't have a marriage but you can have a civil union, is elitism, implying that their love is not as strong or wonderful as a hetero couples is.

 

No matter how you slice it, or dress it up, it is still a "I'm better than you" situation.

[Mtntopview]

You only get thr "I'm better than you" situation if you think one is better. All it is, is a title, and so ignore those who say it is better. It's should be like saying Cactus or a Euphorbia (I'm spelling based on pronounciation, just so it makes sence), they are the same thing with different names!

[hazeh]

The "separate but equal" system just doesn't work.

If a marriage is a civil union, and the name doesn't matter (as you said), then what's the big deal? If it's a marriage, it's a marriage, and doesn't need to be called by some other name to make someone feel better.

Marriage is marriage is marriage. It is a secular ceremony, and those who marry religiously are undergoing "holy matrimony" or whatever religious ceremony that pertains to their religion.

 

Besides, what about the Christians that want to marry gay couple in the church? What about the religious institutions that would unify a homosexual couple the same as a straight couple? The only reason the anti-gay group clings to the term "marriage" is because that is what they are used to and have construed their own interpretation of what marriage is.

 

That is why it is much easier to open it to gay couples instead of shutting out an entire group from it and giving them a substitute. Everyone can interpret it the way they like.

[Riverwillows]

@Mtntopview:

 

Hon, that doesn't work in Real Life. As you will learn as you grow older.

 

People are all the same, we are emotional, deeply feeling entities. Even if the physical benefits are the same, the emotional ones are not, Gays will still feel like they are not considered "human" enough for the wonderful strong emotionality you get with a church or religious ceremony, as opposed to a more "office like" civil union ceremony.

 

You can't understand, because you are still too young. Most of your knowledge comes from observation, not from experience. But, that's ok. You will in time.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Riverwillows

[KageSora]

But if staight couples don't want you in, why harass them! Go create your own thats the same, if not better! (That's what I'd do if I was in the gay communities situation)

And how, exactly, do you propose they do that?

 

To have it equal but under a different name (which I don't agree with) means they will still need to get the government to recognize it as equal--and if people are opposed to gays marrying because it's "wrong" or "unnatural" for them to have the same recognition and benefits as "traditional" (lol) marriage, then you can bet your butt that they will be opposed to attempts to just dress marriage up in a new suit.

 

They're not objecting to the use of the word only--they're objecting to the idea of two individuals of the same sex being legally recognized as living together (perhaps sleeping together), as equals in a relationship, that is legally sanctioned by the government for the purposes of things like benefits.

 

There's a reason a lot of people are opposed to same-sex civil unions, too.

 

 

If it were really that simple, if there were not detrimental effects to just giving it a new name, if separate but equal honestly worked with no "better than you" implications... You can be absolutely sure that we wouldn't have all this trouble in the first place.

 

Names hold power for a great number of people. The amount of power and the type of power they hold will vary from person to person (generally names don't hold a lot of power for me--it's the end result that matters to me, for example). But for many people, names hold just as much importance and power as the end results.

 

That is why we can't just dress marriage up in a new suit for homosexual arrangements and be done with it.

[Obscure_Trash]

What I am saying is that a business could lose trusted customers if they hired a gay or lesbian. This is depending on where it is of course, but more anti-gay areas will not support a business hiring homosexuals, and may not take their money there. Also, by hiring them, there is a chance the employees who are strait may harass the new employee, and so they are avoiding this situation by not hiring what may be the cause of bullying. So maybe it was that if the business hired a gay/lesbian, there was a chance it could be very damaged by the loss of revenue.

This is like expelling the kid who's being bullied in order to protect him from the bullies (who don't face any consequences).

 

I am worried that gays will go the way of the feminist, and have the pendulum swing to the other side.

 

Feminism is the belief that all genders are equal and should be treated as such. I fail to see how more feminists around is a bad thing. =_=

 

Women can say a man raped her and the man will have a hard time fighting the case, especially if he is black. There is a good peice on 60 minutes about this, I'll try and find it.

 

The vast majority of rape cases go unreported. Less than 2% of rape accusations are false.

 

I don't have the numbers on me, but, by far, victims of rape do not see justice. The majority of rapists never see jail time, even if they go to court. And although like 90-95% of rapists are white, 80% of rapists in jail are black.

 

I'll discuss racism in the racism thread with you, if you want. I won't bring up the rest of what you were saying here in order to not derail the thread any further.

 

  But if staight couples don't want you in, why harass them! Go create your own thats the same, if not better! (That's what I'd do if I was in the gay communities situation)

 

I would hope by 16 you've learned about the USA's Civil War and things like Brown v. Board of Education. Although some people don't seem to have learned this lesson, our government did declare that separate cannot be equal.

[NixAyum]

Also, by hiring them, there is a chance the employees who are strait may harass the new employee, and so they are avoiding this situation by not hiring what may be the cause of bullying.

 

That is workplace harassment, plain and simple, and the harasser would need appropriate discipline. Maybe it's even sexual harassment depending on what happens. That is the fault of the straight employee who is harassing, not the gay employee being harassed. Not hiring a gay person because a straight employee might harass them smacks of victim blaming and is not a valid reason to not hire a gay person.

 

 

ninja'd! Yes this bit would go in the racism thread, please post all replies there

 

Anther example is the African American issue. Now there is colleges discriminating against whites, preferring black people over white people.

 

I don't believe this for a second. Source?

 

I did, conversely, skim past a big blog post a few weeks ago that had a ton of stats refuting claims that blacks now received a majority of college scholarships. Surprise, surprise, whites still had the pretty big majority.

 

Also, the shooting of the African American kid a while back (I forgot the name of the kid, sorry). The man probably saw a hoodlum walking through his neighborhood and went to confront him. The kid ended up being shot. And people were outraged because the shooter was white and the kid was black. The thing that was wrong was that people looked to the white guy as a villain. What happened to "Innocent until prooven guilty"?

 

I think you mean Travon (Trevon?) Martin and something Zimmerman. I didn't follow that media blast, but wasn't the story actually that the kid was unarmed just walking home and the shooter was known for being trigger-happy and a vigilante-esque guy? There might have been witnesses or a confession?

 

You're also being very judgmental calling him a hoodlum when you don't even know the names of people involved. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty" for him?

Edited April 10, 2013 by NixAyum

[HeatherMarie]

*Ahem* Just want to point out, where I live it's *illegal* to "not hire someone" just because they are gay. Hiding behind the excuse of "it might cause workplace problems!" is just that, a pathetic excuse by a homophobic employer.

 

I'm "out" at work. If there was EVER any sort of harassment because of that, it would *legally* be my employer's responsibility to discipline the *harassers*. It is also illegal for my employer, or anyone else in the company, to "retaliate" against me for filing a harassment complaint.

 

Anotherwords, yes, you have a lot to learn about how America, and people, actually work.

[bionelly]

All good points, but I still think there should be marriage and civil unions. I think civil unions should be improved to be equal to marriages. I am saying that the Christians should be appeased by doing this. (And sorry I'm probably doing a bad job of getting my opinions across)

So where does that leave gay Christians? Believe it or not, gay marriage isn't actually something that all Christians have a problem with.

[keijaidyyn]

After a bit of character-crunching magic to make everything fit, I have managed to link the "Love and let Love" stamp in my signature to the Day of Silence website, if anyone was looking for the link.

 

EDIT: My apologies; this was actually meant to be posted in the other LBGT thread... but I suppose it's somewhat relevant here as well so I'll leave it unless asked to remove it. I will remove it with no complaint if it is requested.

Edited April 11, 2013 by keijaidyyn

[Zovesta]

Also, just gonna say, pretty effin insulting that homosexuals have to settle for something "lesser". Even if it you say it's not lesser, it is, because if it's not, then why the hell don't they just get married.

[TikindiDragon]

I feel the need to repeat at this point that I would like to see the legal benefits currently assigned to 'marriage' come soley in the form of a Civil Union Contract and be available to everyone. I also do not think that a ceremony in a church should have any legal validity. You want the benefits, you go to register your union at the Registry Office like anyone else.

[Fuzzbucket]

I feel the need to repeat at this point that I would like to see the legal benefits currently assigned to 'marriage' come soley in the form of a Civil Union Contract and be available to everyone. I also do not think that a ceremony in a church should have any legal validity. You want the benefits, you go to register your union at the Registry Office like anyone else.

I would like to second this. The French have ALWAYS had it this way - well, for a very very very long time - and no-one there seems to find it an issue. A religious ceremony has NO legal validity. Technically this is also the case in England (not the whole of the UK), as the only reason that Anglican church weddings are legal weddings is that the CofE is established and all its ministers are de facto registrars of the state, Other religious ceremonies are NOT legal, and you have to go to the register office or have a registrar in the vestry ready to to the LEGAL bit, unless the minister has trained and been accepted as a registrar. Even in the CofE, the bit required by law is done privately in the vestry - the stuff where you swear before god and all that is done in the service and has no legal weight whatsoever.

 

Oddly enough, no-one here who isn't Anglican seems to find this a problem. The sooner we completely separate church and state, and leave legal issues like wills, children, next-of-kin and the rest to the state, the better.

 

I hugely admire the North Carolina church for its stand on this one.

 

News article

 

I wish more churches would stand up and be counted.

[hazeh]

I agree with the above as the platform for legal unification.

But I still think it should be called marriage regardless, because that's what it is and there's no getting around that. But I do think they should all be a civil contract first, with the optional religious ceremony (holy matrimony, etc) separate and not required or used as legal standing.

[Svataben]

You only get thr "I'm better than you" situation if you think one is better. All it is, is a title, and so ignore those who say it is better. It's should be like saying Cactus or a Euphorbia  (I'm spelling based on pronounciation, just so it makes sence), they are the same thing with different names!

No.

Marriage didn't start of as a religious thing, religious people just took it over.

 

Now homosexual people wish to do the same, and since the word never did belong to religious people, they have no say, and no one should be worried about appeasing them.

 

I also saw you mentioning 'American traditions', and it makes me wonder:

You country is less then 250 years old; how traditional are these so-called American traditions?

 

Seriously, do not think you can lay claim to something that existed centuries, if not millennia before your country was even a thought in a Viking's helmeted head.

[bionelly]

I feel the need to repeat at this point that I would like to see the legal benefits currently assigned to 'marriage' come soley in the form of a Civil Union Contract and be available to everyone. I also do not think that a ceremony in a church should have any legal validity. You want the benefits, you go to register your union at the Registry Office like anyone else.

I agree that this would be the ideal solution, but unfortunately I have a feeling the "defense of marriage" folks would make an even bigger fuss about this than about just allowing gay marriage, so as a way to get them to stop standing in the way it probably wouldn't work (and in my experience that group has a lot of overlap with the people who take offense at the idea that any other country could do things a better way than the US, so "it's what they do in Europe" is only going to make them dig their heels in.)

[Fuzzbucket]

I live for the day it is simply called marriage. Whatever gender the people entering into it may be.

 

Until then, it still feels unequal - even in Canada, where we already have it !

[Paegin]

Saw this, thought I'd share.

 

[Spelunker]

Nice. Though the bkg... whatever, the image gets the point across.