I understand you feel angry about this issue. You feel you are being denied certain rights and that you are unable to change (and wouldn't) your orientation. However, I have to disagree that being gay is NEVER a choice. I think for some it is, and for some it's not. I don't doubt that for you it's not a choice.
By calling every single person who opposes gay marriage a bigot, you're really out of line. Being married, I'm sorry, is not a right. It never has been.
Today any criticism is typically countered with slurs of "-bashing" "-phobic" "anti-"...
If I criticize Israel - the government, it is not the same as being anti-Semitic (nor does it guarantee I am not Jewish, that I am a Nazi, or that I am a Palestinian)
If I criticize any black human on the planet it is not the same as being racist (nor does it guarantee I am white or bigoted)
If I criticize a homosexual it is not the same as being homophobic (nor does it guarantee I am heterosexual, Christian, Republican)
People presume that other people are as polarized and radicalized as they are. In fact, I am not.
The characteristics of who I am are secondary to my words, beliefs and how I treat people.
If I criticize a homosexual it is not the same as being homophobic (nor does it guarantee I am heterosexual, Christian, Republican)
Criticize all the gay people you want, I wouldn't care. I don't defend every gay person or everything any gay person has ever done. Any more than I defend everything every Episcopalian has ever done, to take another random demographic trait of mine.
But the moment you argue against gay equality, the second you take a stand against gay civil rights, you are a homophobe and a gay hater, no better than the racists of the 1960s, and deserving of the same treatment and derision.
Kickland et all, do you really think John Kerry will advanced civil rights for GTBL people?
Yes, he supports civil unions. That makes him the most progressive and pro-gay president ever, once he's elected.
Quote:
Even Kerry's own state of Mass. whose legislature is overwhelming Democratic/moderate Republican is passing an amendment to ban gay marriage.
It may pass, but if it does, it will also codify and make legal civil unions for gays, which I have said before is a good "via media" step at the present time.
I would never waste my vote on Nader. I don't agree with him or his pals in his former Green party. Environmentalist whackos with no sense of history or proportion.
Please, oh gracious masta, justify they following issues in light of the fact that I'm not really being denied anything...
All of THESE issues are ones linked into being family. I don't want to be my boyfriend's partner, or his boyfriend, I want to be his family. But the only way to do that is marriage (or civil union, which is the same thing).
In the event of emergency, the law looks to the next of kin ?_even if there are signed papers doling out power of attorney, the "rights" of the next of kin (in this case, my boyfriends fundamentalist filth Southern Baptist parents) will often take precedence. Particularly in the South, the haven of all things bigoted and evil.
Why should they, who reject and hate him, be the ones who make his medical decisions?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to make his medical decisions?
Why shouldn't I be able to inherit his property directly, thus allowing me to maintain ownership of the life we've built together?
Why shouldn't our private conversations be protected like those of a husband or a wife? Why should I be legally required to testify against him?
Why shouldn't he have automatical step-parental rights over any children I father, as he would were he a female and my wife? Why should my kids (or his kids) be taken away from their other parent in the event that the biological father dies?
Why shouldn't we be allowed to join our credit ratings, thus making it easier for us to buy a home?
Why should I be denied the ability to truly build a unified life with the person I love?
Why should the religious objections of some stranger on an Internet board or the evil little Bible church down the street be allowed to dictate how I live my life?
My boyfriend and I don't hurt other people. Our being in love doesn't hurt other people. Our being married wouldn't hurt other people. So what rational, secular reason can be given to hatefully discriminate against me and the person I love?
What gives you the right to demand that the government treat my love as something dirty and wrong while lauding yours?
I don't care what idiocy people teach in their churches ? homophobia, sexism, creationism, substitutionary atonement, rapture eschatology ?_until it is brought to bear as a weapon against me ?_and, more importantly, against the people I love. If I can't dictate what they teach in their churches, why should they get to dictate who makes my medical decisions, who raises my children in the event of my death, who gets to be my family?
I'm going to say it one more goddamn time: Being against gay marriage does not automatically mean hating gays. It just doesn't.
I'm going to say it one more time: Yes it does.
Unless you can justify all of the issues above (oh, and there are, of course, hundreds more), then all you have to fall back on is "that's icky and I hate those fags."
Which is your position, of course. That much is evident to anyone whose read your hateful, anti-gay posts.
I don't see Kerry going out of his was to do anything to curb gay rights, either.
So I have one guy who may "flip-flop" on gay marriage but will maintain the status quo, one who is publicly for putting bigotry into the constitution, but it's okay, 'cause he knows it can't pass, and one who has the same chance of getting elected as Gary Coleman has taking over for Kobe in the next Laker's game.
In 1996, a less compromising Kerry gave an impassioned 10-minute speech on the Senate floor against an effort in Congress to define marriage only as a union between a man and a woman:
?This is a power grab into states? rights of monumental proportions. It is ironic that many of the arguments for this power grab are echoes of the discussion of interracial marriage a generation ago. It is hard to believe that this bill is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans.?
Quote:
In 2002, Kerry teamed up with his congressional colleagues, signing a letter opposing Massachusetts? last effort to outlaw gay marriage. Kerry and company professed that they feared it could be used to prevent communities ?from acting as they might wish to provide some form of recognition for same sex relationships.?
In 2004
Quote:
With his own home state of Massachusetts coming up on a court-imposed two and one-half year window (starting May 17) in which gay couples can legally marry, Kerry says that he would support a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit gay marriage ? so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.
That flip flopping bastard!! That's it, I'm voting for George!!
Unless you can justify all of the issues above (oh, and there are, of course, hundreds more), then all you have to fall back on is "that's icky and I hate those fags."
Which is all they are really saying anyway, since there are no rational arguments against it.
Yes, he supports civil unions. That makes him the most progressive and pro-gay president ever, once he's elected.
It may pass, but if it does, it will also codify and make legal civil unions for gays, which I have said before is a good "via media" step at the present time.
I would never waste my vote on Nader. I don't agree with him or his pals in his former Green party. Environmentalist whackos with no sense of history or proportion.
Kirk
Kerry supports civil unions period. That makes him the most progressive and pro-civil unions president ever, once he's elected.
It may pass, but if it does, it will also codify and make legal civil unions (for all people).
See, it's a civil rights issue -only- so long as you are fighting for civil unions for -all- people regardless of sexual orientation. It is a gay rights issue so long as it is gay-specific and gay-centric.
Blacks in the 1960s didn't march for Black Rights only.
See, it's a civil rights issue -only- so long as you are fighting for civil unions for -all- people regardless of sexual orientation. It is a gay rights issue so long as it is gay-specific and gay-centric.
But isn't this issue an issue of equality for -all- people?
But isn't this issue an issue for equality for -all- people?
Sadly, no.
My point exactly. Civil unions should be for people regardless of sexual orientation.
But gay marriage is being pushed and civil union if won, is merely a trifling temporary gain.
If gay marriages are legalized they could care less about civil unions (leaving the rest of us unmarried people in the lurch). We're supporting you and then we'll get tossed to the side I guess.
It's as if blacks in the 1960's didn't care if asians and hispanics were unequal as long as blacks were treated equal. That didn't happen, they fought for civil rights for all, not just for blacks.
The right thing to do is to push for civil unions for all.
See, it's a civil rights issue -only- so long as you are fighting for civil unions for -all- people regardless of sexual orientation. It is a gay rights issue so long as it is gay-specific and gay-centric.
See, the reason I would want to keep civil unions as a gay-only thing is that I don't want the civil unions system to be permanent. In 20 years, I want to come back and upgrade all those civil unions into marriages upon the opening of marriage to gays, once the bulk of the hardest-core bigots have done the world the favor of dying.
I don't think society is well served by creating a universal "Marriage Lite" classification. In fact, I don't see the point of it. If marriages and civil unions are 100% analogous, what would a heterosexual civil union provide a heterosexual couple that a marriage does not, since in all aspects but name the two institutions should be identical?
Straights already have access to all these rights and protections. The issue is how to provide those rights to those currently barred from access. It seems to me that heterosexual civil unions are a solution without a problem.
You haven't adequately conveyed why it's not. So far, your only point seems to be that there aren't any other groups piggy-backing.
civil rights: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality.
I fail to see how this is not a civil rights issue. The civil rights of group of US citizens are restricted by law.
What is this thing that religious conservatives have against gay people anyway? Why are they so into arbitrarily quoting the Bible when it suits their own bigoted, homophobic, hateful, diseased characteristics, while ignoring all those other equally crazy exhortations from both the old and new testaments?
When it comes to biblical statements like the following, religious conservatives remain as silent as the grave: Thanks to the Atheists of Silicon Valley for the following gems:
*Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women.(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
*Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
*A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
*Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
*Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
*If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
*In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him
(even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
When people start arbitrarily 'stovepiping" (cherrypicking) facts from a huge repository to "justify" one viewpoint, nonsense invariably is the result. We all saw this regarding Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" BS, used to lauch the Iraq war...with the doe-eyed ignorant scared masses being led to the brink like a bunch of lemmings. Now conservative "Christians" are doing the same thing with the Bible...pulling a few conveniently choice statements about life many thousands of years earlier, and attampting to parallel if with modern times. Garbage in equals garbage out. When a pair of gay people who love each other want to tie the knot, the Coulters, the O'Reillys and the Linbaughs of this world start spitting hate and bile like the world was about to end. Why are these people so goddamned angry about? They have the White House, the Senate, the Congress, the Supreme Court, many lower courts, television and radio and 90% of the rest of the media. What more do they want, and why? If we all only live ONCE....then why try and make life as difficult as possible for a group of people they love to hate? Or do these religious conservative losers feel that theirs is a dying species, to be overtaken and swallowed in the inexorable, unstoppable march of evolution..and they are making a last ditch scream as their ship of hate starts to founder and sink?
Straights already have access to all these rights and protections. The issue is how to provide those rights to those currently barred from access. It seems to me that heterosexual civil unions are a solution without a problem.
Kirk
Thanks massah....
In fact I trust a certain male friend with all the civil union-types of benefit more than I would any woman I've yet to meet. I can easy picture being in a civil union with one guy in particular in a completely nonsexual relationship.
But then my sexuality doesn't define who I am so I can see things a bit less sex-centric than most people seem to be able to.
Yes, we can go it alone and demand civil unions without the help of homosexuals, it's just a sad irony that gays are using it as a mere stepping stone rather than it being a valid institution.
In fact I trust a certain male friend with all the civil union-types of benefit more than I would any woman I've yet to meet. I can easy picture being in a civil union with one guy in particular in a completely nonsexual relationship.
That's not what civil unions are for, but if that's what you want, go for it. No one's going to check to make sure you're having sex. Just like you could marry your best friend if she was a girl.
Quote:
Yes, we can go it alone and demand civil unions without the help of homosexuals, it's just a sad irony that gays are using it as a mere stepping stone rather than it being a valid institution.
Why should it be a lasting institution? The entire point of it is a transitory one, to address a current grievance and wrong against gays and lesbians.
For what reason would any straight couple choose a civil union over a marriage if the two are the exact same in everything but name?
Comments
I understand you feel angry about this issue. You feel you are being denied certain rights and that you are unable to change (and wouldn't) your orientation. However, I have to disagree that being gay is NEVER a choice. I think for some it is, and for some it's not. I don't doubt that for you it's not a choice.
By calling every single person who opposes gay marriage a bigot, you're really out of line. Being married, I'm sorry, is not a right. It never has been.
If I criticize Israel - the government, it is not the same as being anti-Semitic (nor does it guarantee I am not Jewish, that I am a Nazi, or that I am a Palestinian)
If I criticize any black human on the planet it is not the same as being racist (nor does it guarantee I am white or bigoted)
If I criticize a homosexual it is not the same as being homophobic (nor does it guarantee I am heterosexual, Christian, Republican)
People presume that other people are as polarized and radicalized as they are. In fact, I am not.
The characteristics of who I am are secondary to my words, beliefs and how I treat people.
Originally posted by johnq
If I criticize a homosexual it is not the same as being homophobic (nor does it guarantee I am heterosexual, Christian, Republican)
Criticize all the gay people you want, I wouldn't care. I don't defend every gay person or everything any gay person has ever done. Any more than I defend everything every Episcopalian has ever done, to take another random demographic trait of mine.
But the moment you argue against gay equality, the second you take a stand against gay civil rights, you are a homophobe and a gay hater, no better than the racists of the 1960s, and deserving of the same treatment and derision.
Not that you necessarily have, mind you.
Kirk
Originally posted by Existence
Kickland et all, do you really think John Kerry will advanced civil rights for GTBL people?
Yes, he supports civil unions. That makes him the most progressive and pro-gay president ever, once he's elected.
Even Kerry's own state of Mass. whose legislature is overwhelming Democratic/moderate Republican is passing an amendment to ban gay marriage.
It may pass, but if it does, it will also codify and make legal civil unions for gays, which I have said before is a good "via media" step at the present time.
I would never waste my vote on Nader. I don't agree with him or his pals in his former Green party. Environmentalist whackos with no sense of history or proportion.
Kirk
Originally posted by SDW2001
You feel you are being denied certain rights
"Feel"?!?!? Feel like I'm being denied??? FEEL?
Please, oh gracious masta, justify they following issues in light of the fact that I'm not really being denied anything...
All of THESE issues are ones linked into being family. I don't want to be my boyfriend's partner, or his boyfriend, I want to be his family. But the only way to do that is marriage (or civil union, which is the same thing).
In the event of emergency, the law looks to the next of kin ?_even if there are signed papers doling out power of attorney, the "rights" of the next of kin (in this case, my boyfriends fundamentalist filth Southern Baptist parents) will often take precedence. Particularly in the South, the haven of all things bigoted and evil.
Why should they, who reject and hate him, be the ones who make his medical decisions?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to make his medical decisions?
Why shouldn't I be able to inherit his property directly, thus allowing me to maintain ownership of the life we've built together?
Why shouldn't our private conversations be protected like those of a husband or a wife? Why should I be legally required to testify against him?
Why shouldn't he have automatical step-parental rights over any children I father, as he would were he a female and my wife? Why should my kids (or his kids) be taken away from their other parent in the event that the biological father dies?
Why shouldn't we be allowed to join our credit ratings, thus making it easier for us to buy a home?
Why should I be denied the ability to truly build a unified life with the person I love?
Why should the religious objections of some stranger on an Internet board or the evil little Bible church down the street be allowed to dictate how I live my life?
My boyfriend and I don't hurt other people. Our being in love doesn't hurt other people. Our being married wouldn't hurt other people. So what rational, secular reason can be given to hatefully discriminate against me and the person I love?
What gives you the right to demand that the government treat my love as something dirty and wrong while lauding yours?
I don't care what idiocy people teach in their churches ? homophobia, sexism, creationism, substitutionary atonement, rapture eschatology ?_until it is brought to bear as a weapon against me ?_and, more importantly, against the people I love. If I can't dictate what they teach in their churches, why should they get to dictate who makes my medical decisions, who raises my children in the event of my death, who gets to be my family?
Why shouldn't I be equal?
Kirk
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm going to say it one more goddamn time: Being against gay marriage does not automatically mean hating gays. It just doesn't.
I'm going to say it one more time: Yes it does.
Unless you can justify all of the issues above (oh, and there are, of course, hundreds more), then all you have to fall back on is "that's icky and I hate those fags."
Which is your position, of course. That much is evident to anyone whose read your hateful, anti-gay posts.
Kirk
So I have one guy who may "flip-flop" on gay marriage but will maintain the status quo, one who is publicly for putting bigotry into the constitution, but it's okay, 'cause he knows it can't pass, and one who has the same chance of getting elected as Gary Coleman has taking over for Kobe in the next Laker's game.
Hmmmm. Rough choice there.
Kerry's Flip Flop
In 1996, a less compromising Kerry gave an impassioned 10-minute speech on the Senate floor against an effort in Congress to define marriage only as a union between a man and a woman:
?This is a power grab into states? rights of monumental proportions. It is ironic that many of the arguments for this power grab are echoes of the discussion of interracial marriage a generation ago. It is hard to believe that this bill is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans.?
In 2002, Kerry teamed up with his congressional colleagues, signing a letter opposing Massachusetts? last effort to outlaw gay marriage. Kerry and company professed that they feared it could be used to prevent communities ?from acting as they might wish to provide some form of recognition for same sex relationships.?
In 2004
With his own home state of Massachusetts coming up on a court-imposed two and one-half year window (starting May 17) in which gay couples can legally marry, Kerry says that he would support a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit gay marriage ? so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.
That flip flopping bastard!! That's it, I'm voting for George!!
Originally posted by Kirkland
Unless you can justify all of the issues above (oh, and there are, of course, hundreds more), then all you have to fall back on is "that's icky and I hate those fags."
Which is all they are really saying anyway, since there are no rational arguments against it.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Yes, he supports civil unions. That makes him the most progressive and pro-gay president ever, once he's elected.
It may pass, but if it does, it will also codify and make legal civil unions for gays, which I have said before is a good "via media" step at the present time.
I would never waste my vote on Nader. I don't agree with him or his pals in his former Green party. Environmentalist whackos with no sense of history or proportion.
Kirk
Kerry supports civil unions period. That makes him the most progressive and pro-civil unions president ever, once he's elected.
It may pass, but if it does, it will also codify and make legal civil unions (for all people).
See, it's a civil rights issue -only- so long as you are fighting for civil unions for -all- people regardless of sexual orientation. It is a gay rights issue so long as it is gay-specific and gay-centric.
Blacks in the 1960s didn't march for Black Rights only.
BTW, Hello, I'm pro-civil unions 1001%
Originally posted by johnq
See, it's a civil rights issue -only- so long as you are fighting for civil unions for -all- people regardless of sexual orientation. It is a gay rights issue so long as it is gay-specific and gay-centric.
But isn't this issue an issue of equality for -all- people?
Originally posted by giant
But isn't this issue an issue for equality for -all- people?
Sadly, no.
My point exactly. Civil unions should be for people regardless of sexual orientation.
But gay marriage is being pushed and civil union if won, is merely a trifling temporary gain.
If gay marriages are legalized they could care less about civil unions (leaving the rest of us unmarried people in the lurch). We're supporting you and then we'll get tossed to the side I guess.
It's as if blacks in the 1960's didn't care if asians and hispanics were unequal as long as blacks were treated equal. That didn't happen, they fought for civil rights for all, not just for blacks.
The right thing to do is to push for civil unions for all.
Originally posted by johnq
See, it's a civil rights issue -only- so long as you are fighting for civil unions for -all- people regardless of sexual orientation. It is a gay rights issue so long as it is gay-specific and gay-centric.
See, the reason I would want to keep civil unions as a gay-only thing is that I don't want the civil unions system to be permanent. In 20 years, I want to come back and upgrade all those civil unions into marriages upon the opening of marriage to gays, once the bulk of the hardest-core bigots have done the world the favor of dying.
I don't think society is well served by creating a universal "Marriage Lite" classification. In fact, I don't see the point of it. If marriages and civil unions are 100% analogous, what would a heterosexual civil union provide a heterosexual couple that a marriage does not, since in all aspects but name the two institutions should be identical?
Straights already have access to all these rights and protections. The issue is how to provide those rights to those currently barred from access. It seems to me that heterosexual civil unions are a solution without a problem.
Kirk
Originally posted by johnq
Sadly, no.
My point exactly.
You haven't adequately conveyed why it's not. So far, your only point seems to be that there aren't any other groups piggy-backing.
civil rights: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality.
I fail to see how this is not a civil rights issue. The civil rights of group of US citizens are restricted by law.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Straights already have access to all these rights and protections.
Unmarried heterosexuals? I various ways, yes, like power of attorney but then so do homosexuals, in every way.
When it comes to biblical statements like the following, religious conservatives remain as silent as the grave: Thanks to the Atheists of Silicon Valley for the following gems:
*Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women.(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
*Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
*A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
*Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
*Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
*If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
*In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him
(even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
When people start arbitrarily 'stovepiping" (cherrypicking) facts from a huge repository to "justify" one viewpoint, nonsense invariably is the result. We all saw this regarding Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" BS, used to lauch the Iraq war...with the doe-eyed ignorant scared masses being led to the brink like a bunch of lemmings. Now conservative "Christians" are doing the same thing with the Bible...pulling a few conveniently choice statements about life many thousands of years earlier, and attampting to parallel if with modern times. Garbage in equals garbage out. When a pair of gay people who love each other want to tie the knot, the Coulters, the O'Reillys and the Linbaughs of this world start spitting hate and bile like the world was about to end. Why are these people so goddamned angry about? They have the White House, the Senate, the Congress, the Supreme Court, many lower courts, television and radio and 90% of the rest of the media. What more do they want, and why? If we all only live ONCE....then why try and make life as difficult as possible for a group of people they love to hate? Or do these religious conservative losers feel that theirs is a dying species, to be overtaken and swallowed in the inexorable, unstoppable march of evolution..and they are making a last ditch scream as their ship of hate starts to founder and sink?
Originally posted by johnq
Unmarried heterosexuals? I various ways, yes, like power of attorney but then so do homosexuals, in every way.
If heterosexuals want these rights, they can go to the courthouse and get married. AFAIK, that is *identical* to a civil union.
Is there a difference other than name? Maybe there's something I'm unaware of.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Straights already have access to all these rights and protections. The issue is how to provide those rights to those currently barred from access. It seems to me that heterosexual civil unions are a solution without a problem.
Kirk
Thanks massah....
In fact I trust a certain male friend with all the civil union-types of benefit more than I would any woman I've yet to meet. I can easy picture being in a civil union with one guy in particular in a completely nonsexual relationship.
But then my sexuality doesn't define who I am so I can see things a bit less sex-centric than most people seem to be able to.
Yes, we can go it alone and demand civil unions without the help of homosexuals, it's just a sad irony that gays are using it as a mere stepping stone rather than it being a valid institution.
Originally posted by johnq
Unmarried heterosexuals? I various ways, yes, like power of attorney but then so do homosexuals, in every way.
Those unmarried heterosexuals can marry. They have access. I do not. How can you compare the situation?
Two heterosexuals in love have a means of building a life together and attaining these rights ?_marriage.
Two homosexuals in love do not. So either gays need to be allowed to marry, or a 100% equivalent institution needs to be established.
Kirk
Originally posted by giant
If heterosexuals want these rights, they can go to the courthouse and get married. AFAIK, that is *identical* to a civil union.
Is there a difference other than name? Maybe there's something I'm unaware of.
Yes, you can't seem to envisage two men or two women being in a lifelong non-sexual relationship.
We don't want marriage, we want civil union. binding in certain things, not all.
Originally posted by johnq
In fact I trust a certain male friend with all the civil union-types of benefit more than I would any woman I've yet to meet. I can easy picture being in a civil union with one guy in particular in a completely nonsexual relationship.
That's not what civil unions are for, but if that's what you want, go for it. No one's going to check to make sure you're having sex. Just like you could marry your best friend if she was a girl.
Quote:
Yes, we can go it alone and demand civil unions without the help of homosexuals, it's just a sad irony that gays are using it as a mere stepping stone rather than it being a valid institution.
Why should it be a lasting institution? The entire point of it is a transitory one, to address a current grievance and wrong against gays and lesbians.
For what reason would any straight couple choose a civil union over a marriage if the two are the exact same in everything but name?
Kirk