Same sex marriage outvoted in Maine

[Bowielee]

Not fully responding for fear I may end up with demerits.

Cliff notes. We just want the same rights and privilages you do, and there's no reason on god's green earth that we shouldn't.

 

[Dave]

No demerits given for arguing your point. Unless your point is calling someone names.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

The problem is, Tim, that the prevailing and major mindset amongst those who oppose same-sex marriage is that homosexuality ISN'T an inborn and unchangible thing like race, but a mental illness that needs to be cured. These are the people that say therapy and prayer camps will make the most flamboyant gay man into a paragon of heterosexuality, and they believe that idiocy with all their hearts. That notion has to be completely and utterly destroyed before they'll budge an inch, and even then it's going to be a VERY tough fight.

So why even try to get them to budge. I know that this is may be considered a tenuous parallel to make but Jim Crow laws weren't repealed through a popular vote. Had it been left to a vote who knows how much longer that situation could have persisted.

At the end of the day the worst societal consequences of same sex marriage is going to be that a some comically misguided people with good intentions--and a few bigots too-- will act butthurt while the rest of society passes them by.

I can live with that.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I can too Tim. I fully believe that in these situations it takes a hammer instead of a handshake to make what right what should be right. I'm just trying to illustrate why the other side is so damned strong and is vehement as they are in this matter

 

[GasBandit]

My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce "Civil Partnerships" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Late to the party, quoting first page, agreeing with it.

The problem is the name. The answer? Get government out of Marriage, provide Civil Partnerships to all, let people call what they've got whatever they want in private. Problem solved.

 

[Armadillo]

My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce "Civil Partnerships" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Late to the party, quoting first page, agreeing with it.

The problem is the name. The answer? Get government out of Marriage, provide Civil Partnerships to all, let people call what they've got whatever they want in private. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but them what of the militant religious people who just want to eradicate the gays, and what of the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion? WHAT OF THEM?!?!?!?

 

[@Li3n]

My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce "Civil Partnerships" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Late to the party, quoting first page, agreeing with it.

The problem is the name. The answer? Get government out of Marriage, provide Civil Partnerships to all, let people call what they've got whatever they want in private. Problem solved.[/quote]

Yes, but them what of the militant religious people who just want to eradicate the gays, and what of the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion? WHAT OF THEM?!?!?!?[/QUOTE]

We eradicate them of course...

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion?

lol

 

[@Li3n]

the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion?

lol[/QUOTE]

What, he's right, the whole 5 of them are a really dangerous lot...

 

[Bowielee]

I thought we'd covered our tracks...

Could everyone take a look at this for a second, please.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce \"Civil Partnerships\" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Late to the party, quoting first page, agreeing with it.

The problem is the name. The answer? Get government out of Marriage, provide Civil Partnerships to all, let people call what they've got whatever they want in private. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]
Hey, yeah, so this is a pretty common argument, and I definitely understand where it comes from, but it's really not a good idea. I already responded to Ashburner, but I'm going to repeat my response here so that you can take a look at it if you are so inclined.

This is a terrible idea for a few reasons:

1. People who argue against gay marriage using the concept that marriage has always been a religious ceremony are completely ignorant to the real history of marriage and it's place in secular society, so that argument is completely invalid. Government has a place in marriage and this does not conflict with history in any way.

2. People who argue against gay marriage but for civil unions or \"civil partnerships\" are, by and large, not really interested in protecting marriages, they're interested in marginalizing gays. The turnaround time for anti-gay marriage lobby groups to go from keeping gay marriage rights restricted to civil unions or domestic partnerships to lobbying against those same rights is pretty much zero.

3. Let's think about what would actually happen if this plan was put into place. People against gay marriage would have concrete proof that gays took away and destroyed marriage. Everyone in the country would be keenly aware of this fact. Even if the proposed Civil Partnerships had the same rights, the word does carry weight, and it would cause massive backlash against the gay rights movement, and there would likely be a significant uptick in violence against gays.

4. Finally, why SHOULD we have to create a new institution for gays? That's akin to admitting that gays are SO REPULSIVE that we, as a society, can't allow them any access to this institution with a long, long history in our society. It creates an automatic otherness about gays that makes them not \"good enough\" or \"worthy\" of marriage. And in the history of civil rights movements in the country, we've always gone the way of including marginalized groups in our already established institutions, not making new institutions and excluding EVERYONE from the old ones. This is for good reason, not the least of which is that we'd have to create new laws as well as change the language of hundreds of years of existing law and precedent.

It's a good idea in a perfect world where we didn't have the history that goes into a word like marriage, but in a perfect world, we'd have equality already.

 

[Chibibar]

Possible issues: The Gay "Rights" groups out there suddenly realize that they actually DON'T want civil unions, they just wanted to draw more attention to their "cause" because they think that we should be forced to accept everyone just for who they are.

Or hey, not being able to know anything about your partner's car wreck condition or possible death because you're not "related".

Nahhh, we just want attention. [/QUOTE]

yea and many other reasons like covering your love one in healthcare, insurance, or heaven forbid that your love one pass away without a will.

I can die right now and my wife will get my estate because the GOVERNMENT has set rules to do so. Why can't same sex couple get that rights automatically?

If I get into a huge accident and falls into a coma without a living will, my wife can make decision on my behalf and visit me with no problem. Same sex couple can't get that because they are not recognize as family unit BY THE GOVERNMENT.

My wife and I can file a joint income tax and get family benefits. Same sex couple can't get that because the Government doesn't recognize them as a family unit.

(Shego: I'm not fighting against you I'm agree and just iterate some of the basic rights/privilage that hetro couple had for so long and didn't even realize that not everyone get the same access because of the government laws.)

 

[Armadillo]

the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion?

lol[/QUOTE]

You're arguing that those kinds of people don't exist? There are NO militant gays who just have a hate-on for religious people?

 

[Chibibar]

different note: I am beginning to think/agree that the religious people just want to exclude gay in their society as a whole and using this "marriage bill" as a shield to continue their ignorance (yea possibly obvious to others but I had hope that was not the case)

I have to agree with kissinger regarding relabling the marriage to civil union. It does give ammo toward the religious nuts and saying "see? see!!! the gays did ruin our government"

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion?

lol[/QUOTE]

You're arguing that those kinds of people don't exist? There are NO militant gays who just have a hate-on for religious people?[/QUOTE]

No, but it's pretty laughable to claim that those few particular people represent a significant portion of the gay rights movement, whereas religious people who want to marginalize and eradicate gays represent the most powerful influences in those against gay rights.

 

[Armadillo]

the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion?

lol[/QUOTE]

You're arguing that those kinds of people don't exist? There are NO militant gays who just have a hate-on for religious people?[/QUOTE]

No, but it's pretty laughable to claim that those few particular people represent a significant portion of the gay rights movement, whereas religious people who want to marginalize and eradicate gays represent the most powerful influences in those against gay rights.[/QUOTE]

NOWHERE did I say the militants represent a "significant portion of the gay rights movement," but you're saying that exact thing about religious people. Hell dude, you're damn near proving those who say that gays are militantly anti-religion right! I've had many, MANY discussions with people against gay marriage, and none of them wanted to "eradicate gays." Again, the main issue was the word "marriage." To religious people, that word has a VERY SPECIFIC definition that results from a very deeply-held spiritual belief. They're not keen on changing the definition, so that's why I side with the "marriage=religion, civil union=government" people. Yes it's a compromise, but in the end all reasonable people get what they want out of it.

 

[GasBandit]

My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce \"Civil Partnerships\" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Late to the party, quoting first page, agreeing with it.

The problem is the name. The answer? Get government out of Marriage, provide Civil Partnerships to all, let people call what they've got whatever they want in private. Problem solved.[/quote]
Hey, yeah, so this is a pretty common argument, and I definitely understand where it comes from, but it's really not a good idea. I already responded to Ashburner, but I'm going to repeat my response here so that you can take a look at it if you are so inclined.

This is a terrible idea for a few reasons:

1. People who argue against gay marriage using the concept that marriage has always been a religious ceremony are completely ignorant to the real history of marriage and it's place in secular society, so that argument is completely invalid. Government has a place in marriage and this does not conflict with history in any way.

2. People who argue against gay marriage but for civil unions or \"civil partnerships\" are, by and large, not really interested in protecting marriages, they're interested in marginalizing gays. The turnaround time for anti-gay marriage lobby groups to go from keeping gay marriage rights restricted to civil unions or domestic partnerships to lobbying against those same rights is pretty much zero.

3. Let's think about what would actually happen if this plan was put into place. People against gay marriage would have concrete proof that gays took away and destroyed marriage. Everyone in the country would be keenly aware of this fact. Even if the proposed Civil Partnerships had the same rights, the word does carry weight, and it would cause massive backlash against the gay rights movement, and there would likely be a significant uptick in violence against gays.

4. Finally, why SHOULD we have to create a new institution for gays? That's akin to admitting that gays are SO REPULSIVE that we, as a society, can't allow them any access to this institution with a long, long history in our society. It creates an automatic otherness about gays that makes them not \"good enough\" or \"worthy\" of marriage. And in the history of civil rights movements in the country, we've always gone the way of including marginalized groups in our already established institutions, not making new institutions and excluding EVERYONE from the old ones. This is for good reason, not the least of which is that we'd have to create new laws as well as change the language of hundreds of years of existing law and precedent.

It's a good idea in a perfect world where we didn't have the history that goes into a word like marriage, but in a perfect world, we'd have equality already.

[/QUOTE]

That's a lot of conjecture there.

1) The real history of marriage probably shouldn't be taken into account here, unless the real history of the treatment of homosexuals is going to be the basis for how they are treated in the future. We're trying to change things here.

2) Unfounded with a side of ad hominem.

3) Pure speculation. But even if it were so, I don't believe marriage is all that sacred anyway.

4) There are plenty of institutions that had "hundreds of years of laws and precedents" that we ended as well, for good reason.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

NOWHERE did I say the militants represent a "significant portion of the gay rights movement,"

I didn't say that you did. But those people are so few and far between that they really shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

but you're saying that exact thing about religious people.

Not about religious people. About the anti-gay marriage movement that has a lot of religious backing.

Hell dude, you're damn near proving those who say that gays are militantly anti-religion right!

How so?

I've had many, MANY discussions with people against gay marriage, and none of them wanted to "eradicate gays."

Well, of course they wouldn't say that. But how many of them want to keep gays on the fringes, or think gays should be "cured" or don't want their children to be around gays? How many of them would be much happier if they lived in a world without any gay people?

Again, the main issue was the word "marriage." To religious people, that word has a VERY SPECIFIC definition that results from a very deeply-held spiritual belief. They're not keen on changing the definition, so that's why I side with the "marriage=religion, civil union=government" people. Yes it's a compromise, but in the end all reasonable people get what they want out of it.

But they wouldn't have to change the definition. Their church would be able to continue having the same idea of marriage that they've always had while gay people would be brought under the umbrella of civil marriage.

 

[Bowielee]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co.../the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

That's a lot of conjecture there.

1) The real history of marriage probably shouldn't be taken into account here, unless the real history of the treatment of homosexuals is going to be the basis for how they are treated in the future. We're trying to change things here.

But doesn't the main argument for your compromise heavily depend on the history of the word marriage and protecting that?

2) Unfounded with a side of ad hominem.

You mean to tell me that you've never seen campaigns against domestic partnership rights or civil union laws? there was one such campaign just this week.

3) Pure speculation. But even if it were so, I don't believe marriage is all that sacred anyway.

YOU don't, but the sanctity of marriage is the ENTIRE basis for the anti-gay marriage campaign.

4) There are plenty of institutions that had \"hundreds of years of laws and precedents\" that we ended as well, for good reason.

Yeah, but marriage law has far-reaching effect, from property and inheritance to taxes to visitation rights. The other institutions to which you refer were mostly oppressive institutions that existed ONLY to oppress groups of people. Things like slavery COULD NOT EXIST without one group of people being oppressed. Marriage is very different in that gays could fairly easily be brought under the umbrella and then HEY, MARRIAGE EQUALITY. Also, this response ignores the main thrust of my 4th point, which is that we shouldn't HAVE to make a new institution just so that gays can be included.

 

[Armadillo]

Yeah, but marriage law has far-reaching effect, from property and inheritance to taxes to visitation rights. The other institutions to which you refer were mostly oppressive institutions that existed ONLY to oppress groups of people. Things like slavery COULD NOT EXIST without one group of people being oppressed. Marriage is very different in that gays could fairly easily be brought under the umbrella and then HEY, MARRIAGE EQUALITY. Also, this response ignores the main thrust of my 4th point, which is that we shouldn't HAVE to make a new institution just so that gays can be included.

Our proposal isn't CREATING a new institution; it's just renaming it in order to achieve a compromise. Remember, if this idea comes to be, there will be NO government-recognized marriages, gay or straight. All unions would be called the same thing, whatever that is, and marriage would be a completely religious institution. Religious rights are upheld, gays and straights are equal in the eyes of the law. It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union." If that's the case, you may not win that one, Kissinger.

 

[Bowielee]

I don't care if they call it Gordian Feegtromping, so long as I can get the same rights when it comes to my partner that a straight person would.

Though, I do agree that the anti-marriage sentiment is less about the wording and more about marginalizing homosexuals.

But, as long as I have equal rights, they can stamp their feet as much as they want.

 

[Armadillo]

I don't care if they call it Gordian Feegtromping, so long as I can get the same rights when it comes to my partner that a straight person would.

Though, I do agree that the anti-marriage sentiment is less about the wording and more about marginalizing homosexuals.

But, as long as I have equal rights, they can stamp their feet as much as they want.

I think we agree, Bowie. As a straight man, I want to see you and your partner have the same rights my wife and I do.

And yes, there are some who just want gays to go away, but fuck 'em. (Butt fuck 'em?)

I sincerely apologize for that last line. I'm going to go sit in the corner for a bit.

 

[Bowielee]

I do have to say that my view is not the be all end all of the gay community's view. I do know many people who are very religious and want church marriages. So, there is more to it than just that.

I think that quite often that people forget that many gay people are just as religious as any other group.

 

[GasBandit]

That's a lot of conjecture there.

1) The real history of marriage probably shouldn't be taken into account here, unless the real history of the treatment of homosexuals is going to be the basis for how they are treated in the future. We're trying to change things here.

But doesn't the main argument for your compromise heavily depend on the history of the word marriage and protecting that?
[/quote]Not at all. Why would it?

2) Unfounded with a side of ad hominem.

You mean to tell me that you've never seen campaigns against domestic partnership rights or civil union laws? there was one such campaign just this week.

No, I'm saying that your assertion that to be pro-civil union is to be anti-gay is fallacious. Sure, there are people who use it as cover, but it is not the entire set, nor does it invalidate the option.

3) Pure speculation. But even if it were so, I don't believe marriage is all that sacred anyway.

YOU don't, but the sanctity of marriage is the ENTIRE basis for the anti-gay marriage campaign.

Well, MY motivation is just to be fair. If that means making both sides unhappy, so be it. But that doesn't disprove that what you posit is pure speculation, mostly brought on by a persecution complex.

4) There are plenty of institutions that had \"hundreds of years of laws and precedents\" that we ended as well, for good reason.

Yeah, but marriage law has far-reaching effect, from property and inheritance to taxes to visitation rights. The other institutions to which you refer were mostly oppressive institutions that existed ONLY to oppress groups of people. Things like slavery COULD NOT EXIST without one group of people being oppressed. Marriage is very different in that gays could fairly easily be brought under the umbrella and then HEY, MARRIAGE EQUALITY. Also, this response ignores the main thrust of my 4th point, which is that we shouldn't HAVE to make a new institution just so that gays can be included.

Laws get changed ALL the time with word substitution. You don't have to completely erase and rewrite the laws. You can simply pass an amendment that says "all references to MARRIAGE in law shall now be understood to be referencing CIVIL UNION." Bada bing.

 

[Armadillo]

I do have to say that my view is not the be all end all of the gay community's view. I do know many people who are very religious and want church marriages. So, there is more to it than just that.

I think that quite often that people forget that many gay people are just as religious as any other group.

Well of course not, it's your view. As for the religious gays, I know that religion isn't always (often?) rational, but why on Earth would you want to be part of an organization that thinks you're not worthy of being one of them? I just don't get that aspect of it. Of course, this refers only to the gay-unfriendly religions.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union."

government-sanctioned marriage is exactly what straight people have access to right now. Civil marriage is not a new idea and we've had it forever. Civil marriage goes all the way back to Hammurabi. You're arguing that straight people don't have access to government-sanctioned marriage, but that's completely false and I don't really know where you're getting that idea. Any two people, provided they are a man and a woman of majority, can get a completely secular, government-sanctioned civil marriage.

Given that fact, why should gay people not be able to get married? Why should we make a new word for them? "Protecting religious marriage" is not an answer because gays would only be brought under the umbrella of civil marriage and religious marriage would continue on as it always has. "Satisfying bigots who want to marginalize gays" is not an answer because they won't be satisfied no matter what.

 

[Bowielee]

I do have to say that my view is not the be all end all of the gay community's view. I do know many people who are very religious and want church marriages. So, there is more to it than just that.

I think that quite often that people forget that many gay people are just as religious as any other group.

Well of course not, it's your view. As for the religious gays, I know that religion isn't always (often?) rational, but why on Earth would you want to be part of an organization that thinks you're not worthy of being one of them? I just don't get that aspect of it. Of course, this refers only to the gay-unfriendly religions.[/QUOTE]

There's really no such thing as a gay-unfriendly religion, just gay-unfriendly followers of that religion.

There are many churges based of of many different creeds that welcome gays with open arms.

Personally, when I was all uber-religious, I never understood how anyone could use the teachings of christ to preach hatred and damnation when it's clearly a message of hope and tolerance, but what do I know?

 

[Chibibar]

It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union."

government-sanctioned marriage is exactly what straight people have access to right now. Civil marriage is not a new idea and we've had it forever. Civil marriage goes all the way back to Hammurabi. You're arguing that straight people don't have access to government-sanctioned marriage, but that's completely false and I don't really know where you're getting that idea. Any two people, provided they are a man and a woman of majority, can get a completely secular, government-sanctioned civil marriage.

Given that fact, why should gay people not be able to get married? Why should we make a new word for them? "Protecting religious marriage" is not an answer because gays would only be brought under the umbrella of civil marriage and religious marriage would continue on as it always has. "Satisfying bigots who want to marginalize gays" is not an answer because they won't be satisfied no matter what.[/QUOTE]

Yup. There are many churches that accepts and will marry gays so regular churches who doesn't believe in gays can stick it.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

But doesn't the main argument for your compromise heavily depend on the history of the word marriage and protecting that?

Not at all. Why would it?[/quote]Whenever I hear people argue this position, it's always so that "religious marriage can be protected" or something along those lines. If anti-gay marriage folks, or people arguing your position (note: just to be clear, I am not comparing them or saying they are the same) don't think that the history of the word marriage should be considered, then why is it even an issue? Why can't gay people get married? If there's another reason to not use the word marriage, despite the fact that civil marriages have been around ever since the invention of law, then what is it?

No, I'm saying that your assertion that to be pro-civil union is to be anti-gay is fallacious. Sure, there are people who use it as cover, but it is not the entire set, nor does it invalidate the option.

It's not the entire set, but I feel that it's pretty clear that it's a significant portion of those against gay marriage considering how quickly those groups are to campaign against civil union laws and the like. There was even a story of gay marriage being defeated, but at the same time, civil unions being legalized. This was a compromise that an anti-gay marriage group fought for. Then immediately after civil unions were legalized, the same group started fighting against those. I don't have a link at the moment to that story, unfortunately.

Well, MY motivation is just to be fair. If that means making both sides unhappy, so be it. But that doesn't disprove that what you posit is pure speculation, mostly brought on by a persecution complex.

It think it's speculation based on observation of behavior, rather than a persecution complex (now who's throwing ad hominems?). IF civil marriage were changed to civil unions, why WOULDN'T anti-gay rights groups use that as evidence that gays actually destroyed marriage? Why wouldn't they use it to convince straight people that they could no longer get married because of gays? It's an absolutely perfect piece of ammunition.

Laws get changed ALL the time with word substitution. You don't have to completely erase and rewrite the laws. You can simply pass an amendment that says "all references to MARRIAGE in law shall now be understood to be referencing CIVIL UNION." Bada bing.

A fair point, and I'll concede that. But you still haven't address the main issue I brought up in point 4.

 

[Armadillo]

It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union."

government-sanctioned marriage is exactly what straight people have access to right now. Civil marriage is not a new idea and we've had it forever. Civil marriage goes all the way back to Hammurabi. You're arguing that straight people don't have access to government-sanctioned marriage, but that's completely false and I don't really know where you're getting that idea. Any two people, provided they are a man and a woman of majority, can get a completely secular, government-sanctioned civil marriage.

Given that fact, why should gay people not be able to get married? Why should we make a new word for them? "Protecting religious marriage" is not an answer because gays would only be brought under the umbrella of civil marriage and religious marriage would continue on as it always has. "Satisfying bigots who want to marginalize gays" is not an answer because they won't be satisfied no matter what.[/QUOTE]

I am? Damn, and here I thought that the wedding I stood up for in the Washington County Courthouse was religious...

Again, we're not "inventing a new word," we're CHANGING THE WORD. Everything we now know as "marriage" as it relates to government sanction hereby is called "union" or "free cat" or "Gordian Freegtromping" or what the hell ever. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term "gay marriage," but A LOT of people do, and I'm trying to achieve a result here. If my marriage is no longer called a marriage in order for you or Bowielee or Shego or any other gay people to have those rights and benefits, so be it.

Besides, bigots won't be happy with this solution because they don't even want gays to have civil unions. So we're not "satisfying bigots" here.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

I am? Damn, and here I thought that the wedding I stood up for in the Washington County Courthouse was religious...

Oh, then I misunderstood this

It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union."

Again, we're not "inventing a new word," we're CHANGING THE WORD. Everything we now know as "marriage" as it relates to government sanction hereby is called "union" or "free cat" or "Gordian Freegtromping" or what the hell ever. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term "gay marriage," but A LOT of people do, and I'm trying to achieve a result here. If my marriage is no longer called a marriage in order for you or Bowielee or Shego or any other gay people to have those rights and benefits, so be it.

Besides, bigots won't be happy with this solution because they don't even want gays to have civil unions. So we're not "satisfying bigots" here.

So why bother changing the word? It seems to me that the people who have a problem with "gay marriage" are just as likely to have a problem with "gay civil unions" AND changing the word creates an implied otherness about gays - i.e. we have to change the word because marriage is too sacred to let them have marriage - that can't be there if we want true equality.

 

[Armadillo]

I am? Damn, and here I thought that the wedding I stood up for in the Washington County Courthouse was religious...

Oh, then I misunderstood this

It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union."

Again, we're not "inventing a new word," we're CHANGING THE WORD. Everything we now know as "marriage" as it relates to government sanction hereby is called "union" or "free cat" or "Gordian Freegtromping" or what the hell ever. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term "gay marriage," but A LOT of people do, and I'm trying to achieve a result here. If my marriage is no longer called a marriage in order for you or Bowielee or Shego or any other gay people to have those rights and benefits, so be it.

Besides, bigots won't be happy with this solution because they don't even want gays to have civil unions. So we're not "satisfying bigots" here.

So why bother changing the word? The people who have a problem with "gay marriage" are just as likely to have a problem with "gay civil unions"[/QUOTE]

Because there is a large number of people who object to the term "gay marriage" who WOULDN'T have a problem with "gay civil unions." Again, we're looking for a result here.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

I edited my post up there to expand on my point a bit.

 

[TotalFusionOne]

Where were they showing V for Vendetta?

Some place here in Raleigh called The Colony.

Don't lump all of gay rights under this. Most people just want to be accepted as equals, as human fucking beings. Was MLK just yelling about attention for his "cause"? And what the FUCK is so wrong about accepting everyone for who they are, how can you say that like it's a bad thing? It's, at worst, common human decency.

Holy fucking misunderstanding, Batman.

First off, I didn't lump any gays together. I specifically said Gay Rights groups. A lot of people (Including myself, being a bi-man in a gay world, and most of my friends down south) refused to join any groups outside of the Straight-Gay Alliance because of the political notions that pretty much all Gay Rights groups have. Most of these groups don't believe that equality is enough either. They want more.

In fact, you can see the effect they have in your own argument. You just used MLK as somehow "Similar" to this situation, something that I'm sure is not unintended by Gay Rights groups language in their literature, arguments, even the names of their groups. But really, Gay rights is like MLKs Black equality? Please tell me which generation of gay people were put in chains. Which one lived and died in slavery. Which one lost MOST of it's people to the cruelty of straight men and woman? Because whereas I have seen straight-on-gay crime, I haven't seen the mass killings of slaves that occurred. I don't see the struggle for equality over the next 100 years leading up to MLKs speech. Hell, I don't even see gay people being discriminated against in the work place, school, etc. There are no signs that say "No gays." There are no schools for just gay people. Please take a normal gay man into Harlem and have him say "So... We're like the same, right?"

The truth of the matter is... Gay people have been made legally equal in every way except one. Four documents have to be signed and notarized for you to have a standing akin to marriage. Four. That's less shit than a straight person goes through. Can find out about your partners condition? Why aren't you listed as the emergency contact at your local hospital? Why isn't your partner carrying a card listing you as such? A simple "Power of attorney" form that you can get for free and have notarized for next to nothing would solve this. The same form could make you equal holders of any earnings, or properties. But it's not about any of these things to the gay rights groups. It's about not wanting to be disliked.

Lets say I join an anti-abortion group (I hate the terms pro-life and pro-choice because both are lies). I go into work and say something about my "cause." No arguments, no pushing myself in the face of something. Just saying as simple as "Oh yeah I have an anti-abotion protest this weekend." There is no legal recourse for me if people dislike me because of that. There is no legal recourse if I get fired for my lifestyle. I believed something, I lived a certain way. And it's ALRIGHT IF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT. Which is the complete opposite of what we're being taught today.

Let me say this again: It's alright if you don't like it. It's alright if you don't like me, right? You already were kinda... harsh with your arguments. There's a difference between not liking me for THESE ideas and not liking gay people? We're both just living our lifes the way we think is right for us.

And the thing is... It's all working. We're giving more leeway to people who are homosexual than we are to any other group. Look at the arguments on this board in the last week about a simple three letter word that used to be used as a slam against gays. Do you think people would think twice if someone said "Cracker" or "Whitey?" How about homophobe? I see straight people put down all the time just because they don't like gay people (Non-withstanding the "I can't tolerate intolerance" argument, that's just stupid any way you look at it).

I know this is massive wall-o-text but I really am quite upset that you mistook something I said, and then tried to act like MLK and gay rights have something in common. Also, I have no way to end this. So I will end it with this:

 

[Chibibar]

Totalfusionone: question. I understand the system is there but why a gay person has to do ALL that just to get the same benefits hetro couples get it automatically without signing those extra papers. There are more than just 4 really.

There are health insurance stuff (some company DO allow now but not majority) name changes (cost money for gay couple) I really need to find that list of stuff that many hetro couples enjoy automatically.

The main problem is why these people have to do the extra stuff while they are citizens of the U.S. They all pay the same taxes as everyone else. They follow the law like everyone else. Why do these people have to be treated differently just to get the same benefits from the government?

Also... just let you know, a same sex couple can't get SS check if the partner dies, it goes to the family and cannot be willed to non-family members. that might not be important to you, but it is important to some.

minor correction: not SS check (you lose that) I was thinking of insurance benefits

http://www.caregiverslibrary.org/Default.aspx?tabid=663

What Is Survivors’ Insurance?

When an eligible family member who has paid Social Security taxes and earned enough “credits” dies, certain family members—including widow(er)s (and divorced widow(er)s), children, and dependent parents—are eligible to collect survivor benefits. The more money an individual earns, the higher the value of his or her survivors’ insurance.

right now - the government would NOT recognize same sex marriage and thus, the person would not be a widower.