Political Crossfire Forums

[Jay2014]

UrielsFyre wrote: derEikopf wrote:
I don't like homosexuality. I think it's gross. But if some dude wants to poke another dude...have at it, I don't care. Just don't make me watch. And if some dude wants to marry another guy, he should have the exact same government treatment that a man and a woman have.

I can respect that. I don't care if people think it is "gross" or not. All I care is that my legal rights are protected, just as a straight couples are.

Oh, and I think straight sex is gross. So, we are even. ;)

thats what i wish people would understand! while heterosexuals have to deal with the "gay agenda" being thrown in their face, we throw the straight agenda in their faces all day. imagine if 99% of kisses you saw in TV and the movies were of two guys.

people seem to lack any empathy. turn the tables, and imagine living in a culture where homosexuality was the norm, and you were viewed as a deviant everywhere you went. marrige is no business of the state.

[F'losrix]

armstrong001 wrote: Again, I don't believe that you should be treated differently, in hospitals or otherwise.
You very clearly do feel we should be treated differently with regard to marriage, however.

Quote: Like I said, I'm all for changing the system. You shouldn't have to jump through any extra hoops to visit loved ones in the hospital. I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that you shouldn't be getting married for these "benefits". That's not what marriage is for.
So what do you think marriage is for?

Quote: So, I'll repeat this again. I am all for you having the same visitation rights as so called family members. But that issue should be separate from marriage.
'Should be' isn't reality. The reality is that the federal government's own accounting body found over a thousand areas of federal law in which marital status was a factor. Let me repeat - over a thousand - and that's just at the federal level, not the state. You want examples? Here are a few:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here's a list of some state issues:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

Some things can be handled through extra legal arrangements, but there are quite a few that can't. And it begs the question of why we should have to go to an extra effort and expense that heterosexually married couples don't. Tell me why.

While societal recognition of our equality would be nice, I have no illusion that this can be accomplished by legislative means. People can't be forced to 'like' us - passing laws that protect us or strive to give us legal equality will not lead to social equality. One need only examine the issue of race in this country for proof of that.

Let's be clear - many of these things are not benefits that marriage guarantees - they are not benefits OF marriage, they are benefits ASSOCIATED WITH marriage. Marriage doesn't automatically provide them, but you can't access them without it in many cases, either. That is why we need the governments stupid piece of paper, recognizing us. The government doesn't make us married or not - we are. What matters is whether the government recognizes our marriages, unlocking the door so that we can participate equally with the rest of society in these benefits.

Social recognition is a separate battle with a different front and requires different tactics. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get government recognition without that social recognition. We've been working - some of us for over 50 years - toward changing society's attitudes in hopes that someday their influence on the government will become strong enough to finally give us the legal recognition we need and deserve. But we've come to the realization that society is never going to change - we will always be hated and never recognized unless we undertake to change government policy by the force of the law - hence the court challenges you see now regarding marriage.

You can't tell me we aren't hated, either - I have literally been on the wrong end of a pitchfork because of someone's hatred of me based on their presumptions about my sexual orientation. I've lived the reality of dealing with that kind of hatred day in and day out - your protestations to the contrary will not persuade me to ignore my years of prior, direct experience with the issue.

So you can prattle on all you like about how you think we should be treated the same but not married. It's a bogus sentiment - we know what we're being denied by being excluded from marriage recognition and so do you.

Anyone who says gay people are alrealdy treated equally is lying to themselves and everyone else.

[armstrong001]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: armstrong001 wrote: Again, I don't believe that you should be treated differently, in hospitals or otherwise.
You very clearly do feel we should be treated differently with regard to marriage, however.
Yes.

Quote: So what do you think marriage is for?
Marriage is two parts, procreative and unitive. It is a bond that goes beyond just agreeing to live together. I believe that there is a spiritual component to this as well. What I mean by this is that marriage is also a pact between a man and a woman to raise a family together in a manner befitting their spiritual beliefs. As you've pointed out, homosexuals cannot bear their own children. So half of the purpose of marriage is left out from the start.

Quote: 'Should be' isn't reality. The reality is that the federal government's own accounting body found over a thousand areas of federal law in which marital status was a factor. Let me repeat - over a thousand - and that's just at the federal level, not the state. You want examples? Here are a few:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here's a list of some state issues:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

Some things can be handled through extra legal arrangements, but there are quite a few that can't. And it begs the question of why we should have to go to an extra effort and expense that heterosexually married couples don't. Tell me why.
That's a long list of things that I won't argue. I don't have any problems changing the rules so that marriage isn't a factor. My point is that instead of spending your time trying to widen the definition of marriage, you should be trying to change these benefits so that they won't be an issue any more.

Quote: While societal recognition of our equality would be nice, I have no illusion that this can be accomplished by legislative means. People can't be forced to 'like' us - passing laws that protect us or strive to give us legal equality will not lead to social equality. One need only examine the issue of race in this country for proof of that.

Let's be clear - many of these things are not benefits that marriage guarantees - they are not benefits OF marriage, they are benefits ASSOCIATED WITH marriage. Marriage doesn't automatically provide them, but you can't access them without it in many cases, either. That is why we need the governments stupid piece of paper, recognizing us. The government doesn't make us married or not - we are. What matters is whether the government recognizes our marriages, unlocking the door so that we can participate equally with the rest of society in these benefits.

Then fight for these benefits, not marriage.

Quote: Social recognition is a separate battle with a different front and requires different tactics. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get government recognition without that social recognition. We've been working - some of us for over 50 years - toward changing society's attitudes in hopes that someday their influence on the government will become strong enough to finally give us the legal recognition we need and deserve. But we've come to the realization that society is never going to change - we will always be hated and never recognized unless we undertake to change government policy by the force of the law - hence the court challenges you see now regarding marriage.

You can't tell me we aren't hated, either - I have literally been on the wrong end of a pitchfork because of someone's hatred of me based on their presumptions about my sexual orientation. I've lived the reality of dealing with that kind of hatred day in and day out - your protestations to the contrary will not persuade me to ignore my years of prior, direct experience with the issue.

You can't tell me that all heterosexual people hate you either. I don't hate you. I don't agree with your actions, but I don't hate you. I'm sorry you've had to experience years of hatred. But those experiences seem to color your opinion of anyone who disagrees with you.

I am not arguing for rounding up all homosexuals and putting them away. I am arguing for maintaining what the accepted definition of marriage has been (for the most part) for a very long time.

Quote: So you can prattle on all you like about how you think we should be treated the same but not married. It's a bogus sentiment - we know what we're being denied by being excluded from marriage recognition and so do you.

Anyone who says gay people are alrealdy treated equally is lying to themselves and everyone else.

My problem is that a group of people is seeking recognition (and therefore societal acceptance) for something many, and I believe the majority of Americans believe is morally wrong. Society's laws are based on that society's morals. If society doesn't want to recognize an abnormal lifestyle to be at the same moral level of the lifestyle of the vast majority of its citizens, it won't. And that may mean certain lifestyles will not be as openly acceptedas others.

[F'losrix]

armstrong001 wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: So what do you think marriage is for?
Marriage is two parts, procreative and unitive.
Procreation is not the purpose of marriage. If it were, we would require all heterosexual couples to fulfill that purpose and dissolve the marriages of those who fail to comply.

Quote: It is a bond that goes beyond just agreeing to live together.
Yes - and that is the same for gay couples.

Quote: I believe that there is a spiritual component to this as well.
As do many gay couples who get married.

Quote: What I mean by this is that marriage is also a pact between a man and a woman to raise a family together in a manner befitting their spiritual beliefs.
It may mean that to some people, but that meaning is not universal, even among heterosexually married couples.

Quote: As you've pointed out, homosexuals cannot bear their own children. So half of the purpose of marriage is left out from the start.
Then this must also be true of heterosexual couples that can't or won't procreate. Maybe we should require them to produce children before we confer marriage recognition.

Quote: My point is that instead of spending your time trying to widen the definition of marriage, you should be trying to change these benefits so that they won't be an issue any more.
Changing over a thousand separate laws vs. fighting for recognition of our marriages...Nope - I'm sticking with the latter.

We are not seeking to change the definition of marriage - it is a union formed when two competent adults declare their consent to form a family unit. That family unit may include children, but they aren't required. Nor is opposite genders of the participants. What we are trying to change is the government's definition of what it will recognize as a marriage.

Those are two very different things.

Quote: Then fight for these benefits, not marriage.
We are not fighting just for the benefits. We are fighting for marriage recognition because our marriages are just as important to us as the marriages of heterosexual couples are to them. You're deliberately trying to obscure the issue.

Quote: I am not arguing for rounding up all homosexuals and putting them away. I am arguing for maintaining what the accepted definition of marriage has been (for the most part) for a very long time.
Less hateful, but hateful nonetheless. (or at least mean-spirited)

Quote: My problem is that a group of people is seeking recognition (and therefore societal acceptance) for something many, and I believe the majority of Americans believe is morally wrong. Society's laws are based on that society's morals. If society doesn't want to recognize an abnormal lifestyle to be at the same moral level of the lifestyle of the vast majority of its citizens, it won't. And that may mean certain lifestyles will not be as openly acceptedas others.
It doesn't make them right, NOR moral for holding onto that prejudice.

Explain to me why you believe it is immoral, absent any religious context. If you can't do that, then I have to argue that you're trying to force your religious doctrines into government policy - and I view that in itself as immoral. I don't base my standard of morality upon this or that religious text. I base it upon what causes direct, demonstrable harm by violating basic human rights and/or the concept of fairness.

Re: the word lifestyle - having an homosexual orientation is NOT a lifestyle, which is defined thus: the pattern of living as expressed in a person’s activities, interests and opinions. Gay people do not all have the same pattern of living, enjoy the same activities, hold the same interests or opinions. Our lifestyles are as varied as those of heterosexuals.

You cannot simply sweep us under the rug by characterizing all of us as immoral, trivializing the very real discrimination we've experienced, or purging our presence from print and electronic media. We are here to stay and the more you try to push us down the louder we're going to protest.

[F'losrix]

Quote: My problem is that a group of people is seeking recognition (and therefore societal acceptance) for something many, and I believe the majority of Americans believe is morally wrong. Society's laws are based on that society's morals. If society doesn't want to recognize an abnormal lifestyle to be at the same moral level of the lifestyle of the vast majority of its citizens, it won't. And that may mean certain lifestyles will not be as openly acceptedas others.
Let's be sure we all understand what your message to gay people is, then:

Some people are fond of telling us that we need to persuade the majority to support our cause instead of taking a path through the courts, etc. But there is nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING a gay person can EVER do to persuade the majority to allow our full participation in this society - not so long as that majority clings to the belief that all gay people are immoral.

So you aren't rounding us up for extermination or deportation yet. That isn't because you value our contributions to society - it's only because the majority at present subscribe to other moral imperatives that prevent them from taking drastic steps to eradicate us.

The only reason you let us stay is because you might feel bad about yourselves if you undertook some other action to 'fix the problem' of homosexuality.

Meanwhile you expect us to just accept your minimal tolerance for our presence on the planet as 'good enough'.

Let's make sure you're getting the message from us loud and clear:

The fact that you comprise a majority doesn't make you morally superior. If all you can offer us is hopelessness, then you are putting this country on a path toward violence. I'm not advocating that as a solution, merely making the observation that it will happen - and society will be the weaker as the result. You can only beat up on us just so long before some start responding with the only means they feel you've left them.

[Glass]

I think not letting two persons of the same sex marry is unconstitutional! :wink:

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!!

[Enoch]

I am not going to go on ad naseum about this, beings that this debate has been worked over time and time again. However, I find it interesting to note that I have not seen a single argument against gay marriage in which the poster can show how he or she would actually be harmed, or how society would be harmed.

They all rely on the "societal morals" and "slippery slope" argument. No demonstratable harm has been shown, to my knowledge, in support of their position.