Gay marriage is not about love. You can have love without legal recognition. Gay marriage is about equal treatment, it's about medical insurance, and spouse benefits and all those little legal rights and assumptions that straight people get as soon as they're married.
In the near term, pseudo-marriage arrangements will spread to all states. This must happen, because it's in the interest of businesses and big money (remember the golden rule). Later, votes such as proposition 8 will be overturned (might take 10 years or so) and all states (and later most countries) will have gay marriage.
I respectfully disagree. This may be your interpretation but for most, marriage (gay or straight) is most certainly about love. It's the ability to declare to the world that you love someone so much that you are willing to make a life-long commitment to him... to say your love is strong enough that despite whatever trials there will be in the relationship, you have enough faith that your love will help you overcome, that you wish to go beyond just simply being in a relationship.
I fully understand the practical side of marriage but if it were about being practical, allowing for civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage would be enough. For me, it wouldn't be and I'm lucky to be Canadian because here, the debate is over.
Based on your definition/interpretation, we'd have this type of scenario:
Man gets on his knees and proposes to his long time partner. (S)he begins to tear up as (s)he says, "Yes, Yes, Yes I'll marry you. Yes, I can finally be covered by your medical plan and have all the legal benefits of marriage! Sob, sob."
How romantic. Can you tell me again how gay marriage wouldn't be about love?
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp
Gay marriage is not about love. You can have love without legal recognition. Gay marriage is about equal treatment, it's about medical insurance, and spouse benefits and all those little legal rights and assumptions that straight people get as soon as they're married.
In the near term, pseudo-marriage arrangements will spread to all states. This must happen, because it's in the interest of businesses and big money (remember the golden rule). Later, votes such as proposition 8 will be overturned (might take 10 years or so) and all states (and later most countries) will have gay marriage.
I respectfully disagree. This may be your interpretation but for most, marriage (gay or straight) is most certainly about love. It's the ability to declare to the world that you love someone so much that you are willing to make a life-long commitment to him... to say your love is strong enough that despite whatever trials there will be in the relationship, you have enough faith that your love will help you overcome, that you wish to go beyond just simply being in a relationship.
I fully understand the practical side of marriage but if it were about being practical, allowing for civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage would be enough. For me, it wouldn't be and I'm lucky to be Canadian because here, the debate is over.
Based on your definition/interpretation, we'd have this type of scenario:
Man gets on his knees and proposes to his long time partner. (S)he begins to tear up as (s)he says, "Yes, Yes, Yes I'll marry you. Yes, I can finally be covered by your medical plan and have all the legal benefits of marriage! Sob, sob."
How romantic. Can you tell me again how gay marriage wouldn't be about love?
Men don't get on their knees, they get on one knee. Then they move in together. That's love. At least that's what I did. They can go to the priest, rabbi, other cleric or Elvis impersonator and have a big ceremony to announce to the world. We did that 6 months later. Gays and Lesbians in most countries of the world can find a cleric of some denomination who will marry them. That's still true in California as well.
The only thing that prop 8 changes, is the legal recognition by the state. And that does not relate in any way to romance. That relates to medical plans, to default wills, to automatic assumption of fatherhood and to legal powers. That's what gays in California are missing.
Civil unions do cover most bases. They don't really fall short. The fear is that they will become 2nd class, and that not all the benefits will be given to people joined in civil unions. The other, more political side, is that giving gays a "different" definition is some kind of exclusion.
I see your point. My point is that by denying homosexuals the right to use the term marriage diminishes the emotional value of the union, not in the eyes of the couple but in the eyes of the rest of society. Because civil unions grant legal equality, the one thing missing is the spiritual and emotional significance of marriage.
I disagree that (gay) marriage is not about love but for everything else, we're on the same page. It is definitely an issue of equality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp
Men don't get on their knees, they get on one knee. Then they move in together. That's love. At least that's what I did. They can go to the priest, rabbi, other cleric or Elvis impersonator and have a big ceremony to announce to the world. We did that 6 months later. Gays and Lesbians in most countries of the world can find a cleric of some denomination who will marry them. That's still true in California as well.
The only thing that prop 8 changes, is the legal recognition by the state. And that does not relate in any way to romance. That relates to medical plans, to default wills, to automatic assumption of fatherhood and to legal powers. That's what gays in California are missing.
Civil unions do cover most bases. They don't really fall short. The fear is that they will become 2nd class, and that not all the benefits will be given to people joined in civil unions. The other, more political side, is that giving gays a "different" definition is some kind of exclusion.
You have an apple and an orange. You want to always refer to an orange as an apple. I do not object. You then want ME to always refer to an orange as an apple. I object. An orange is not an apple.
You have an apple and an orange. You want to always refer to an orange as an apple. I do not object. You then want ME to always refer to an orange as an apple. I object. An orange is not an apple.
The issue is not what YOU call it, or what I call it, or what canucklehead calls it.
The issue is the government, employers, hospitals, banks and schools. And they had better treat the gay permanent relationship the same as the old-fashioned kind of permanent relationship.
I'll give you just one example of why this is important. Suppose my wife (God forbid) passes out. I rush her to the emergency room. I check her in, the doctor looks at her, monitors her heart, and says: "She needs emergency surgery". I say, "OK. I'll sign the form."
Now let's take the "other" case. It also begins with a woman passing out, but now she's brought into the hospital by her girlfriend/life partner/civil unionist/orange. They get to the emergency room and the nurse says, "who are you?" So "orange" says, "I'm her life partner". So the nurse says, "Hmmm, OK. I'll just write down that you found her. Does she have medical insurance?" Anyway, the doctors examine her, and ask Orange, "you're her friend, right? Do you have the phone number of a family member?" So she says, "I'm her life partner, she would want you to tell me!" So the doctor says, "Hospital policy is that we only discuss her condition with next of kin. Do you have her parents' phone number?"
But Orange and the patient don't just live together. They went to a particularly liberal priest who married them, but knowing that this has not force in the state of California, they also made a contract that lists essentially all the regular things that straight couples have. So now Orange says, "We have a contract that gives me power of attorney in situations like this". So the doctor says, "Hey, don't give this to me, I am not a lawyer. Give this to the nurse at the desk, and the hospital lawyer will look at it in the morning. For now, I need her parents' phone number, because there's a big decision to make."
Is this sufficiently oranges-to-oranges for you? BTW: If you think this is far-fetched, it's not. Conversations like this actually take place lots of times, and the general situation, of having to put your spouse in the hospital and sign for some medical treatment when they're incapacitated,
that awaits all of us. The only way out is to be so incapacitated by the time that happens, that it will be left to your children.
The issue is not what YOU call it, or what I call it, or what canucklehead calls it.
The issue is the government, employers, hospitals, banks and schools. And they had better treat the gay permanent relationship the same as the old-fashioned kind of permanent relationship.
I'll give you just one example of why this is important. Suppose my wife (God forbid) passes out. I rush her to the emergency room. I check her in, the doctor looks at her, monitors her heart, and says: "She needs emergency surgery". I say, "OK. I'll sign the form."
Now let's take the "other" case. It also begins with a woman passing out, but now she's brought into the hospital by her girlfriend/life partner/civil unionist/orange. They get to the emergency room and the nurse says, "who are you?" So "orange" says, "I'm her life partner". So the nurse says, "Hmmm, OK. I'll just write down that you found her. Does she have medical insurance?" Anyway, the doctors examine her, and ask Orange, "you're her friend, right? Do you have the phone number of a family member?" So she says, "I'm her life partner, she would want you to tell me!" So the doctor says, "Hospital policy is that we only discuss her condition with next of kin. Do you have her parents' phone number?"
But Orange and the patient don't just live together. They went to a particularly liberal priest who married them, but knowing that this has not force in the state of California, they also made a contract that lists essentially all the regular things that straight couples have. So now Orange says, "We have a contract that gives me power of attorney in situations like this". So the doctor says, "Hey, don't give this to me, I am not a lawyer. Give this to the nurse at the desk, and the hospital lawyer will look at it in the morning. For now, I need her parents' phone number, because there's a big decision to make."
Is this sufficiently oranges-to-oranges for you? BTW: If you think this is far-fetched, it's not. Conversations like this actually take place lots of times, and the general situation, of having to put your spouse in the hospital and sign for some medical treatment when they're incapacitated,
that awaits all of us. The only way out is to be so incapacitated by the time that happens, that it will be left to your children.
This is a bait and switch tactic. No one is saying Domestic partner laws should Not be passed,AND in most places they already have been.
Man and a Woman= Marriage
two same sex= something else. Should be equal to Marriage but is not "marriage"
This is a bait and switch tactic. No one is saying Domestic partner laws should Not be passed,AND in most places they already have been.
Wrong. Florida banned civil unions with their amendment 2, which states: ?Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.?
This is a bait and switch tactic. No one is saying Domestic partner laws should Not be passed,AND in most places they already have been.
Man and a Woman= Marriage
two same sex= something else. Should be equal to Marriage but is not "marriage"
Sounds good, but assuming you're an American, I think your country has had some bad experience with the applications of the "separate but equal" concept.
Sounds good, but assuming you're an American, I think your country has had some bad experience with the applications of the "separate but equal" concept.
Exactly. Seperate but equal did not work, because the only reason to keep things seperate is because they are NOT equal.
It is kind of disingenuous to say "you can't have what we have--but its ok, it doesn't matter." If you believe certain people don't deserve equal rights, be honest and say it
Wrong. Florida banned civil unions with their amendment 2, which states: “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Yes, not recognizing certain marriages (or its substantial equivalent) is an important part of the proposition that has unfortunately been obfuscated in the discussion.
I think the main problem is that the consequences of such proposals for same sex couples seem too complex or futile to a large part of the general public.
Prop 8 operates in indirect ways.
Obfuscation.
Off topic:
I have the impression that conservative propositions on same sex marriage, abortion and other contentious issues, have actually worked against the Republicans in the elections.
For many Americans, their views on issues like abortion will determine their vote, over most or all other issues.
These propositions (partly) detach the subject from the political party that is traditionally associated with it.
Prop 8 gave people a chance to vote for Obama while still expressing their conservative allegiance through their vote on same sex marriage.
I think that this system of putting propositions on the ballot creates some of the effects of a multiple-party-system. Voting on issues more then on heads.
So, despite the direct negative outcome, there's a positive aspect to them.
Exactly. Seperate but equal did not work, because the only reason to keep things seperate is because they are NOT equal.
It is kind of disingenuous to say "you can't have what we have--but its ok, it doesn't matter." If you believe certain people don't deserve equal rights, be honest and say it
Assuming you're of this world, I think your country has had some bad experience with the applications of the "separate and not equal" concept.
The issue is not what YOU call it, or what I call it, or what canucklehead calls it.
The issue is the government, employers, hospitals, banks and schools. And they had better treat the gay permanent relationship the same as the old-fashioned kind of permanent relationship.
I'll give you just one example of why this is important. Suppose my wife (God forbid) passes out. I rush her to the emergency room. I check her in, the doctor looks at her, monitors her heart, and says: "She needs emergency surgery". I say, "OK. I'll sign the form."
Now let's take the "other" case. It also begins with a woman passing out, but now she's brought into the hospital by her girlfriend/life partner/civil unionist/orange. They get to the emergency room and the nurse says, "who are you?" So "orange" says, "I'm her life partner". So the nurse says, "Hmmm, OK. I'll just write down that you found her. Does she have medical insurance?" Anyway, the doctors examine her, and ask Orange, "you're her friend, right? Do you have the phone number of a family member?" So she says, "I'm her life partner, she would want you to tell me!" So the doctor says, "Hospital policy is that we only discuss her condition with next of kin. Do you have her parents' phone number?"
But Orange and the patient don't just live together. They went to a particularly liberal priest who married them, but knowing that this has not force in the state of California, they also made a contract that lists essentially all the regular things that straight couples have. So now Orange says, "We have a contract that gives me power of attorney in situations like this". So the doctor says, "Hey, don't give this to me, I am not a lawyer. Give this to the nurse at the desk, and the hospital lawyer will look at it in the morning. For now, I need her parents' phone number, because there's a big decision to make."
Is this sufficiently oranges-to-oranges for you? BTW: If you think this is far-fetched, it's not. Conversations like this actually take place lots of times, and the general situation, of having to put your spouse in the hospital and sign for some medical treatment when they're incapacitated,
that awaits all of us. The only way out is to be so incapacitated by the time that happens, that it will be left to your children.
That is a straw dog argument. It completely ignores single people, who may, or may NOT have living family to even ask. All you really care about is getting your way concerning gay marriage, and you lost. What's more, you will continue to lose, because the majority of the people in the US do NOT support gay marriage. Now you come with this stupid argument.
That is a straw dog argument. It completely ignores single people, who may, or may NOT have living family to even ask. All you really care about is getting your way concerning gay marriage, and you lost. What's more, you will continue to lose, because the majority of the people in the US do NOT support gay marriage. Now you come with this stupid argument.
Gay marriage is NOT a right, get over it!
I am not from the US, so I haven't lost anything. Single people don't have someone obvious to look after them. That's what single means. People with marriage or civil unions do. It's not a straw man (or dog) argument.
I'd like to hear why you think government controled marriage for heterosexual couples is a right. By your arguments, this should only be between your god/church.
I also wonder if you think interracial marriage is okay when the god clearly made separate races of people. At least, that is was the religious argument for why interracial marriage is morally wrong and should not be recognized. How may years after the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case did it take before you finally accepted interracial marriage as acceptable? Or haven't you?
What is moral and sacred about marriage is divorce and adultery can occur so easily? I believe that each crime is punishable by stoning, according to the bible. The bible has a lot more to say about divorce than it does about homosexuality. Have you ever had friends that committed adultery or got divorced? Did you spit in their face and sold them for their actions when you found out?
Watch out, many Americans seem to be taught (through their Christian church?) that being Muslim equals being an extremist who is promotes terrorism. Anecdotally speaking, I find that it's quite prolific in our Red states, but overall is fairly common among lower financial class Christian Republicans.
Watch out, many Americans seem to be taught (through their Christian church?) that being Muslim equals being an extremist who is promotes terrorism. Anecdotally speaking, I find that it's quite prolific in our Red states, but overall is fairly common among lower financial class Christian Republicans.
I have not found that to be true. Christians and Muslims have much in common in regards to their beliefs. Like...Gay Marriage.
Same argument could have been previously used when it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. Fact is, progess is progress and fight it all you want. Gay marriage WILL happen in the US. Thanks to Prop 8, more people are standing up for their rights and for equality than ever before and by denying it in three additional states will ultimately help allow it in the entire country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic
You have an apple and an orange. You want to always refer to an orange as an apple. I do not object. You then want ME to always refer to an orange as an apple. I object. An orange is not an apple.
Haha. You're in such denial, it's actually funny. Good thing you're old and you might not see the day when it happens but it will happen.
The passing of Prop 8 has only acted to bring people together in support of gay marriage. The less vocal minority is now saying it's time for a change. The battle may have been lost but the war is far from over. The next generation coming up mostly don't know what all the fuss is about and gay marriage will become legal - and not just in individual states.
Deny it all you want. It is going to happen in the US.
You can either live and let live or continue believing that "All animals are created equal. But some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell, Animal Farm
You hold the Good Book so dear to your heart yet you don't understand the message. Someone else suggested that to "protect the sanctity of marriage" perhaps we make divorce illegal too. Maybe if that were the case, people will stop rushing into marriage like it was disposable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
That is a straw dog argument. It completely ignores single people, who may, or may NOT have living family to even ask. All you really care about is getting your way concerning gay marriage, and you lost. What's more, you will continue to lose, because the majority of the people in the US do NOT support gay marriage. Now you come with this stupid argument.
Comments
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/
Gay marriage is not about love. You can have love without legal recognition. Gay marriage is about equal treatment, it's about medical insurance, and spouse benefits and all those little legal rights and assumptions that straight people get as soon as they're married.
In the near term, pseudo-marriage arrangements will spread to all states. This must happen, because it's in the interest of businesses and big money (remember the golden rule). Later, votes such as proposition 8 will be overturned (might take 10 years or so) and all states (and later most countries) will have gay marriage.
I fully understand the practical side of marriage but if it were about being practical, allowing for civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage would be enough. For me, it wouldn't be and I'm lucky to be Canadian because here, the debate is over.
Based on your definition/interpretation, we'd have this type of scenario:
Man gets on his knees and proposes to his long time partner. (S)he begins to tear up as (s)he says, "Yes, Yes, Yes I'll marry you. Yes, I can finally be covered by your medical plan and have all the legal benefits of marriage! Sob, sob."
How romantic. Can you tell me again how gay marriage wouldn't be about love?
Gay marriage is not about love. You can have love without legal recognition. Gay marriage is about equal treatment, it's about medical insurance, and spouse benefits and all those little legal rights and assumptions that straight people get as soon as they're married.
In the near term, pseudo-marriage arrangements will spread to all states. This must happen, because it's in the interest of businesses and big money (remember the golden rule). Later, votes such as proposition 8 will be overturned (might take 10 years or so) and all states (and later most countries) will have gay marriage.
I respectfully disagree. This may be your interpretation but for most, marriage (gay or straight) is most certainly about love. It's the ability to declare to the world that you love someone so much that you are willing to make a life-long commitment to him... to say your love is strong enough that despite whatever trials there will be in the relationship, you have enough faith that your love will help you overcome, that you wish to go beyond just simply being in a relationship.
I fully understand the practical side of marriage but if it were about being practical, allowing for civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage would be enough. For me, it wouldn't be and I'm lucky to be Canadian because here, the debate is over.
Based on your definition/interpretation, we'd have this type of scenario:
Man gets on his knees and proposes to his long time partner. (S)he begins to tear up as (s)he says, "Yes, Yes, Yes I'll marry you. Yes, I can finally be covered by your medical plan and have all the legal benefits of marriage! Sob, sob."
How romantic. Can you tell me again how gay marriage wouldn't be about love?
Men don't get on their knees, they get on one knee. Then they move in together. That's love. At least that's what I did. They can go to the priest, rabbi, other cleric or Elvis impersonator and have a big ceremony to announce to the world. We did that 6 months later. Gays and Lesbians in most countries of the world can find a cleric of some denomination who will marry them. That's still true in California as well.
The only thing that prop 8 changes, is the legal recognition by the state. And that does not relate in any way to romance. That relates to medical plans, to default wills, to automatic assumption of fatherhood and to legal powers. That's what gays in California are missing.
Civil unions do cover most bases. They don't really fall short. The fear is that they will become 2nd class, and that not all the benefits will be given to people joined in civil unions. The other, more political side, is that giving gays a "different" definition is some kind of exclusion.
I disagree that (gay) marriage is not about love but for everything else, we're on the same page. It is definitely an issue of equality.
Men don't get on their knees, they get on one knee. Then they move in together. That's love. At least that's what I did. They can go to the priest, rabbi, other cleric or Elvis impersonator and have a big ceremony to announce to the world. We did that 6 months later. Gays and Lesbians in most countries of the world can find a cleric of some denomination who will marry them. That's still true in California as well.
The only thing that prop 8 changes, is the legal recognition by the state. And that does not relate in any way to romance. That relates to medical plans, to default wills, to automatic assumption of fatherhood and to legal powers. That's what gays in California are missing.
Civil unions do cover most bases. They don't really fall short. The fear is that they will become 2nd class, and that not all the benefits will be given to people joined in civil unions. The other, more political side, is that giving gays a "different" definition is some kind of exclusion.
You have an apple and an orange. You want to always refer to an orange as an apple. I do not object. You then want ME to always refer to an orange as an apple. I object. An orange is not an apple.
The issue is not what YOU call it, or what I call it, or what canucklehead calls it.
The issue is the government, employers, hospitals, banks and schools. And they had better treat the gay permanent relationship the same as the old-fashioned kind of permanent relationship.
I'll give you just one example of why this is important. Suppose my wife (God forbid) passes out. I rush her to the emergency room. I check her in, the doctor looks at her, monitors her heart, and says: "She needs emergency surgery". I say, "OK. I'll sign the form."
Now let's take the "other" case. It also begins with a woman passing out, but now she's brought into the hospital by her girlfriend/life partner/civil unionist/orange. They get to the emergency room and the nurse says, "who are you?" So "orange" says, "I'm her life partner". So the nurse says, "Hmmm, OK. I'll just write down that you found her. Does she have medical insurance?" Anyway, the doctors examine her, and ask Orange, "you're her friend, right? Do you have the phone number of a family member?" So she says, "I'm her life partner, she would want you to tell me!" So the doctor says, "Hospital policy is that we only discuss her condition with next of kin. Do you have her parents' phone number?"
But Orange and the patient don't just live together. They went to a particularly liberal priest who married them, but knowing that this has not force in the state of California, they also made a contract that lists essentially all the regular things that straight couples have. So now Orange says, "We have a contract that gives me power of attorney in situations like this". So the doctor says, "Hey, don't give this to me, I am not a lawyer. Give this to the nurse at the desk, and the hospital lawyer will look at it in the morning. For now, I need her parents' phone number, because there's a big decision to make."
Is this sufficiently oranges-to-oranges for you? BTW: If you think this is far-fetched, it's not. Conversations like this actually take place lots of times, and the general situation, of having to put your spouse in the hospital and sign for some medical treatment when they're incapacitated,
that awaits all of us. The only way out is to be so incapacitated by the time that happens, that it will be left to your children.
The issue is not what YOU call it, or what I call it, or what canucklehead calls it.
The issue is the government, employers, hospitals, banks and schools. And they had better treat the gay permanent relationship the same as the old-fashioned kind of permanent relationship.
I'll give you just one example of why this is important. Suppose my wife (God forbid) passes out. I rush her to the emergency room. I check her in, the doctor looks at her, monitors her heart, and says: "She needs emergency surgery". I say, "OK. I'll sign the form."
Now let's take the "other" case. It also begins with a woman passing out, but now she's brought into the hospital by her girlfriend/life partner/civil unionist/orange. They get to the emergency room and the nurse says, "who are you?" So "orange" says, "I'm her life partner". So the nurse says, "Hmmm, OK. I'll just write down that you found her. Does she have medical insurance?" Anyway, the doctors examine her, and ask Orange, "you're her friend, right? Do you have the phone number of a family member?" So she says, "I'm her life partner, she would want you to tell me!" So the doctor says, "Hospital policy is that we only discuss her condition with next of kin. Do you have her parents' phone number?"
But Orange and the patient don't just live together. They went to a particularly liberal priest who married them, but knowing that this has not force in the state of California, they also made a contract that lists essentially all the regular things that straight couples have. So now Orange says, "We have a contract that gives me power of attorney in situations like this". So the doctor says, "Hey, don't give this to me, I am not a lawyer. Give this to the nurse at the desk, and the hospital lawyer will look at it in the morning. For now, I need her parents' phone number, because there's a big decision to make."
Is this sufficiently oranges-to-oranges for you? BTW: If you think this is far-fetched, it's not. Conversations like this actually take place lots of times, and the general situation, of having to put your spouse in the hospital and sign for some medical treatment when they're incapacitated,
that awaits all of us. The only way out is to be so incapacitated by the time that happens, that it will be left to your children.
This is a bait and switch tactic. No one is saying Domestic partner laws should Not be passed,AND in most places they already have been.
Man and a Woman= Marriage
two same sex= something else. Should be equal to Marriage but is not "marriage"
This is a bait and switch tactic. No one is saying Domestic partner laws should Not be passed,AND in most places they already have been.
Wrong. Florida banned civil unions with their amendment 2, which states: ?Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.?
This is a bait and switch tactic. No one is saying Domestic partner laws should Not be passed,AND in most places they already have been.
Man and a Woman= Marriage
two same sex= something else. Should be equal to Marriage but is not "marriage"
Sounds good, but assuming you're an American, I think your country has had some bad experience with the applications of the "separate but equal" concept.
Sounds good, but assuming you're an American, I think your country has had some bad experience with the applications of the "separate but equal" concept.
Exactly. Seperate but equal did not work, because the only reason to keep things seperate is because they are NOT equal.
It is kind of disingenuous to say "you can't have what we have--but its ok, it doesn't matter." If you believe certain people don't deserve equal rights, be honest and say it
Wrong. Florida banned civil unions with their amendment 2, which states: “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Yes, not recognizing certain marriages (or its substantial equivalent) is an important part of the proposition that has unfortunately been obfuscated in the discussion.
I think the main problem is that the consequences of such proposals for same sex couples seem too complex or futile to a large part of the general public.
Prop 8 operates in indirect ways.
Obfuscation.
Off topic:
I have the impression that conservative propositions on same sex marriage, abortion and other contentious issues, have actually worked against the Republicans in the elections.
For many Americans, their views on issues like abortion will determine their vote, over most or all other issues.
These propositions (partly) detach the subject from the political party that is traditionally associated with it.
Prop 8 gave people a chance to vote for Obama while still expressing their conservative allegiance through their vote on same sex marriage.
I think that this system of putting propositions on the ballot creates some of the effects of a multiple-party-system. Voting on issues more then on heads.
So, despite the direct negative outcome, there's a positive aspect to them.
Exactly. Seperate but equal did not work, because the only reason to keep things seperate is because they are NOT equal.
It is kind of disingenuous to say "you can't have what we have--but its ok, it doesn't matter." If you believe certain people don't deserve equal rights, be honest and say it
Assuming you're of this world, I think your country has had some bad experience with the applications of the "separate and not equal" concept.
The issue is not what YOU call it, or what I call it, or what canucklehead calls it.
The issue is the government, employers, hospitals, banks and schools. And they had better treat the gay permanent relationship the same as the old-fashioned kind of permanent relationship.
I'll give you just one example of why this is important. Suppose my wife (God forbid) passes out. I rush her to the emergency room. I check her in, the doctor looks at her, monitors her heart, and says: "She needs emergency surgery". I say, "OK. I'll sign the form."
Now let's take the "other" case. It also begins with a woman passing out, but now she's brought into the hospital by her girlfriend/life partner/civil unionist/orange. They get to the emergency room and the nurse says, "who are you?" So "orange" says, "I'm her life partner". So the nurse says, "Hmmm, OK. I'll just write down that you found her. Does she have medical insurance?" Anyway, the doctors examine her, and ask Orange, "you're her friend, right? Do you have the phone number of a family member?" So she says, "I'm her life partner, she would want you to tell me!" So the doctor says, "Hospital policy is that we only discuss her condition with next of kin. Do you have her parents' phone number?"
But Orange and the patient don't just live together. They went to a particularly liberal priest who married them, but knowing that this has not force in the state of California, they also made a contract that lists essentially all the regular things that straight couples have. So now Orange says, "We have a contract that gives me power of attorney in situations like this". So the doctor says, "Hey, don't give this to me, I am not a lawyer. Give this to the nurse at the desk, and the hospital lawyer will look at it in the morning. For now, I need her parents' phone number, because there's a big decision to make."
Is this sufficiently oranges-to-oranges for you? BTW: If you think this is far-fetched, it's not. Conversations like this actually take place lots of times, and the general situation, of having to put your spouse in the hospital and sign for some medical treatment when they're incapacitated,
that awaits all of us. The only way out is to be so incapacitated by the time that happens, that it will be left to your children.
That is a straw dog argument. It completely ignores single people, who may, or may NOT have living family to even ask. All you really care about is getting your way concerning gay marriage, and you lost. What's more, you will continue to lose, because the majority of the people in the US do NOT support gay marriage. Now you come with this stupid argument.
Gay marriage is NOT a right, get over it!
That is a straw dog argument. It completely ignores single people, who may, or may NOT have living family to even ask. All you really care about is getting your way concerning gay marriage, and you lost. What's more, you will continue to lose, because the majority of the people in the US do NOT support gay marriage. Now you come with this stupid argument.
Gay marriage is NOT a right, get over it!
I am not from the US, so I haven't lost anything. Single people don't have someone obvious to look after them. That's what single means. People with marriage or civil unions do. It's not a straw man (or dog) argument.
Oh, and by the way I am a Muslim.
Gay marriage is NOT a right, get over it!
I'd like to hear why you think government controled marriage for heterosexual couples is a right. By your arguments, this should only be between your god/church.
I also wonder if you think interracial marriage is okay when the god clearly made separate races of people. At least, that is was the religious argument for why interracial marriage is morally wrong and should not be recognized. How may years after the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case did it take before you finally accepted interracial marriage as acceptable? Or haven't you?
What is moral and sacred about marriage is divorce and adultery can occur so easily? I believe that each crime is punishable by stoning, according to the bible. The bible has a lot more to say about divorce than it does about homosexuality. Have you ever had friends that committed adultery or got divorced? Did you spit in their face and sold them for their actions when you found out?
Oh, and by the way I am a Muslim.
Watch out, many Americans seem to be taught (through their Christian church?) that being Muslim equals being an extremist who is promotes terrorism. Anecdotally speaking, I find that it's quite prolific in our Red states, but overall is fairly common among lower financial class Christian Republicans.
Watch out, many Americans seem to be taught (through their Christian church?) that being Muslim equals being an extremist who is promotes terrorism. Anecdotally speaking, I find that it's quite prolific in our Red states, but overall is fairly common among lower financial class Christian Republicans.
I have not found that to be true. Christians and Muslims have much in common in regards to their beliefs. Like...Gay Marriage.
You have an apple and an orange. You want to always refer to an orange as an apple. I do not object. You then want ME to always refer to an orange as an apple. I object. An orange is not an apple.
The passing of Prop 8 has only acted to bring people together in support of gay marriage. The less vocal minority is now saying it's time for a change. The battle may have been lost but the war is far from over. The next generation coming up mostly don't know what all the fuss is about and gay marriage will become legal - and not just in individual states.
Deny it all you want. It is going to happen in the US.
You can either live and let live or continue believing that "All animals are created equal. But some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell, Animal Farm
You hold the Good Book so dear to your heart yet you don't understand the message. Someone else suggested that to "protect the sanctity of marriage" perhaps we make divorce illegal too. Maybe if that were the case, people will stop rushing into marriage like it was disposable.
That is a straw dog argument. It completely ignores single people, who may, or may NOT have living family to even ask. All you really care about is getting your way concerning gay marriage, and you lost. What's more, you will continue to lose, because the majority of the people in the US do NOT support gay marriage. Now you come with this stupid argument.
Gay marriage is NOT a right, get over it!