Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kwirl » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:44 am

I'm not the first person on the internet to link this video (hi, fark ((i still curse you, kajib)) but this is a video that stood out to me. I have activist friends in the GLBT community, and I felt this video deserves to be disseminated to anyone who might not have been exposed to this perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Qe

Watch the video. Its moving right? Three hours later, the following took place.

The House voted 62-37 to approve House Joint Resolution 6, which calls for a referendum on a constitutional amendment recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman. It would ban same-sex marriages, which have been recognized in Iowa since April 2009 when the court ruled in Varnum v. Brien.

Basically, if I interpret this correctly, Iowa wants to call for a state constitutional amendment defining marriages as man-woman and barring all same sex couples from the rights that are associated with that classification. I don't live in Iowa, but this is an example and a precedent that I do not want to see followed anywhere within the borders of our nation.

I have linked the video along with the results of the Iowa House of Representatives decision to facebook, and encouraging people to use the tools available to us to show our support of this young man, his family, and the many people like him that are not able to have their voices heard. If enough people spread this information then maybe our voice can be heard, and the final outcome of this legislation can be altered in the face of national coverage and scrutiny. If any of you would be willing to share this with your friends and family on facebook, I am sure you will have the unspoken gratitude of many thousands of people who want nothing more than the same rights that the majority of Americans are entitled to.

I understand that there are probably some here that disagree with same-sex unions and their lifestyle, I am not attempting to impose or alter your opinions or beliefs, I am merely showing you a perspective that for many of you might come as something of a surprise given the propagandistic nature of information reported on this lifestyle.

anyway, the video speaks for itself, thanks for your time.
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kwirl » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:47 am

Found this opinion that sums up my feelings nearly verbatim, so posting it here...Homosexuals are our brothers and sisters. They deserve the same rights as anyone else. Plain and simple. Not marriages for some, and civil unions for others. It only increases divides in society. It only continues the idea that homosexuals are separate. Other.

The fear of the other is what is at stake here. Preserving the illusion that they're somehow different than "normal" people. They are normal people. They just don't happen to share a preference for the opposite sex. Same hopes. Same dreams. Same ability to love. Same hurts. Same pain.

And if you wouldn't dream of sticking your nose into what religion your neighbor's daughter marries, why are folks so keen on telling that same daughter what sex she can marry?

Separate but equal is not equal. Plain and simple.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:58 am

What is it about their relationship that makes it equal to the relationship of marriage as defined by the state and federal law?

If you want a spiritual or religious marriage to someone else of the opposite sex, that is protected by the constitution. To say that same-sex marriage is banned I find to be both misleading and implying that which is not true.

What is happening is that same-sex marriages are not being recognized by the state as marriage in terms of how a registered marriage between a man and a woman receives certain rights due to the state's encouragement of such relationships. So, if we MUST recognize their relationship as equal on the basis of their wanting us to, then we MUST recognize other relationships, such as polygamous, incestuous, and other relationships.
Last edited by Teflor Lyorian on Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kwirl » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:03 am

and what makes his parents unworthy of those same rights?


/edit - the amendment being debated WOULD specifically ban same-sex marriages
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:08 am

kwirl wrote:/edit - the amendment being debated WOULD specifically ban same-sex marriages

If you read the text on House Joint Resolution 6, you would have seen the specific language "as the only legal union that is valid or recognized in the state."

This simply means that the state would not recognize or hold valid the claim to legal union for same-sex marriages. Religious freedom is not offended as you are welcome to be married by your religion by anyone that will do so - just that the government will not recognize it as equal to marriage status.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kwirl » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:13 am

why not? by what right does our government 'favor' one religion's interpretation over marriage as worthy of reward while intentionally disregarding the validity and recognition of another?

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:23 am

Well, actually, the common school of thought is that the state has a strong incentive to promote the union between a man and a woman because every surviving society larger than a few hundred people is based on the nuclear family. This is fact based outside of religion. It's also just one of thousands of social norms that are legislated for the benefits that it provides to society.

In this country, everything and everyone has had to earn their rights. Without a doubt, the United States of America will eventually recognize same-sex marriage as having the same privileges and benefits that traditional marriage does - but that too will most likely be because it's an accepted social norm at that time.

So, basically, I'm saying there is no "rights" argument to same-sex marriage, that there's precious few and precarious "logical" arguments to promote same-sex marriage, and that eventually, same-sex marriage will be recognized for EXACTLY the same reason that we currently don't recognize it.

Really takes the wind out of the sails of the advocates.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kwirl » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:53 am

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
I must have missed the '...equal upon meeting the socially accepted status and suffering the lack of rights granted to all Americans for an undetermined length of time.

Separation of church and state along with equality are two of the most prominent principles that our country was founded on. Yes, women had to fight to 'earn' their rights. African Americans had to endure and struggle for those same rights. Women are still discriminated against in many workplace environments, and the inequality of the treatment of African Americans goes without saying and needs no citation I believe. Would not our nation be a better place had we freely given those promised rights to women and minorities without forcing them to fight for them? Why should any American citizen have to 'fight' to earn something that has been promised to every American citizen since the day those words were set to paper and signed into law?

Did you watch the video? That kid's speech walks all over your logic of the 'nuclear family ideal'. You treat the nuclear family lifestyle as if it has been a part of our country since inception instead of what it actually is, which is a result of the change in economic conditions at the turn of the 19th century. For the last 50 or so years, we have seen a rather consistent decline in the quality of parenting and the living conditions for this nuclear family model and many studies have shown that same-sex parents are well ahead of the curve with regards to the quality of life that they provide for their children. If we are going to reward someone for no reason than that they choose to partner with someone of the opposite sex, would it not be in the best interest of our country to instead provide those rewards to parents who provide the highest quality of life for their children and set the example by which all parents, regardless of sexual orientation, should aspire?


/you will NEVER get me to back down from my belief that equality is the very first right given to the people of our country for a reason. i refuse to accept any argument that implies any justification or reason to allow for the discrimination of any person based on their race, gender, sexuality or any other non-harmful trait. i look at ALL arguments that attempt to rationalize and justify this discrimination as either tragically uneducated, or spitefully hateful.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:01 am

Ok Kwirl answer me this.

Do you support polygamous marriage?

Do you support incestuous marriage?

Do you support pedophilic marriage?

Do you support bestial marriage?

Now if you answered no to any of the above, please explain your moral reasoning. Be careful, especially on the bestial point... we once considered black people to be sub human, "beasts".

The fact is, marriage is a social construct to serve a social purpose. It is not discrimination to deny this structure to parties that don't serve its purpose. I'm not saying that is or isn't true in the case of gays, but its not as simple as gay rights advocates want to suggest.

--

This is particular pathetic even for you.

/you will NEVER get me to back down from my belief that equality is the very first right given to the people of our country for a reason. i refuse to accept any argument that implies any justification or reason to allow for the discrimination of any person based on their race, gender, sexuality or any other non-harmful trait. i look at ALL arguments that attempt to rationalize and justify this discrimination as either tragically uneducated, or spitefully hateful.

"You will never change your mind. I refuse to accept. I look at all arguments." So what happens when you run into an argument that justifies a ban on gay marriage? In classic liberal style, you start off by spouting your neutrality, your reasonability, but in the face of a legitimate argument you show your close mindedness. I'll give you credit for not resorting to name calling and attacks on our character (yet).
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kwirl » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:32 am

Do you support polygamous marriage?
yes
Do you support incestuous marriage?
if consensual
Do you support pedophilic marriage?
no, minors are unable to enter into a legal contract
Do you support bestial marriage?
wow, by 'we' you mean 'you and people who share your reasoning' because i have never felt that way, and feel that using it as a basis for argument is inflammatory and insulting.

marriage is a social construct to serve a social purpose
citation needed. you really better be able to clarify this point, since it seems to be the crux of your rebuttal, i would love to see an articulate clarification of the 'social purpose' definition of marriage WITHOUT crossing the separation of church and state barrier.

As for your assault on my position, your assumptive position is warranted given my history, however, I have yet to encounter a rational and legitimate argument against gay marriage that did not ultimately end with phrases like 'god hates queers' and other westboro baptist attitudes. the fact is, you did NOT give me a legitimate argument, you responded with a vague, non defined argument that serves the purpose of letting you hold an opinion without proclaiming a discriminatory mentality.

define this 'social purpose' and explain why same-sex couples are such an abomination that they do not deserve this same right, and i'll examine my opinion on the subject, but i have yet to encounter anyone arguing your position that did not break down and end the debate on same-sex rights without getting angry and saying 'god says its wrong'. the last time i checked, we don't live in a nation of laws written by god. (yes, I am a christian by the way, i don't oppose 'in god we trust' or celebrating 'christmas', i just believe that any god worth my worship had better not play favorites with the people who love him)
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kwirl » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:56 am

You have the right to not like gay people. You can hate African-Americans. you can be disgusted by same-sex marriages and men who wear women's underwear. I would stand up and fight for your right to do so, but I will not support any attempt to pass a law or amendment which tramples on the unalienable rights of American citizens as defined in our constitution.

What is marriage? Marriage is a pursuit of happiness. In our cynical world we can crack jokes, but at the end of the day, marriage is not a social project that select members get invitiations. a marriage between two people is their commitment to each other. It is a partnership between individuals that love each other and have decided that together they can have a better life than they would without their partner. this pursuit of happiness (i'm being repetitive in case some of you forget that you might have heard that phrase somewhere before) is a right. it is a right promised to all Americans without condition, without exceptions, and without discrimination. the fact is, the only reason to oppose same-sex marriages is religious doctrine that has convinced you that it is wrong or evil, and i will not believe that it is in the power of any legal body in our country to impose that sanction without violating the principles of our nation.

You have the right to dislike it, but you do not have the right to deny an equal citizen their rights in the interest of protecting your religious doctrine.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:58 pm

kwirl wrote:Did you watch the video? That kid's speech walks all over your logic of the 'nuclear family ideal'.

I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there. First of all, at no time did I present any "ideal," nor argument for or against or judging the value of the societal model shared by every single nation on the earth. Second of all, the advocacy video is only convincing if you want it to be: it purposefully cherry picks the most positive from the most positive AND leaves out negative information on the subject - essentially making no argument further than simple propaganda.

I know it was not your intention to put words in my mouth, but you're not arguing with me in this paragraph, you are arguing with yourself.

kwirl wrote:/you will NEVER get me to back down from my belief that equality is the very first right given to the people of our country for a reason.

You are talking about equality of relationships, NOT the equality of people.

And just so you know, there's nothing in the constitution, the declaration of independence, or even in the American spirit that says that all relationships are created equal.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ragorn » Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:53 pm

For the record, I also support polygamy as a practice, though I think legalizing it on the same level of marriage has a lot of pitfalls. Incest is illegal because of the propensity for genetic mutation when siblings breed, which is something we've documented over countless centuries. Pedophelic marriage is (and should be) illegal because children under a certain age haven't developed the cognitive and emotional maturity needed to enter into a committed relationship -- here, there exists a psychological and psychosocial reason. Beastiality is just a silly, spurious addition to the argument, unless you know a domestic house cat that's able to give consent and sign the marriage forms.

The problem with legalizing polygamy is that it allows individuals to form large collectives under the law. I don't understand the ramifications well enough to really foresee how that would turn out. If you let 19 men and 31 women all marry into one giant civil union, with all the rights and priviledges thereof, that seems to me like a recipe for disaster, legally speaking.

Morally? Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

Edit: Did kiryan just relate bestiality to interracial marriage?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kwirl » Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:57 pm

what part of the constitution says that a woman who loves another woman has less rights than a woman who loves a man?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:26 pm

How about if we just ban all marriage? Then everyone can be equal, and two people who want to raise a family can do so if they so choose.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:55 pm

The woman has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex and have that union legally recognized.

There's no lack of rights or a difference in the level of individual rights.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:05 pm

your position on bestial marriage is insulting for people who love their animals and whose animals love them back. (yea im not really serious, but you should recognize your own position)

I did compare interracial marriage to bestial marriage. Less than 200 years ago, we considered the black man a subspecies of human, for all intense and purpose little more than an intelligent beast. In 200 years maybe we will be past specicism (racism against other species) recognize animal's rights and interets as equal to that of humans. The foundation is already here, we protect their environment, we require they be killed and kept "humanely." How many more of their "rights" do we have to recognize before we confer them with equal consideration in every area under the law.

Why aren't minors able to enter a legal contract? Do they not have any rights? If minors can be prevented from entering a legal marriage contract, why can't gays be prevented?

--

You want me to prove that marriage is a social structure. What else could it be? A religious structure? IF its religious, where do you get off telling a religion what it believes and trying to legislate a religious structure in law? Separation of church and state right? So I'll assume you are trying to differentiate it as a social structure vs a legal structure. I don't see the difference. Call it a legal structure I don't care. Its a structure that is designed to serve a purpose in society.

If you don't fit the bill, then you don't have a right to the designation. You don't have a right to be called an uncle if you don't meet the definition of what an Uncle is. This is the same debate with transgender. Are they a man or a woman or a transgender? Just because I say I'm a woman doesn't mean I can walk into a woman's lavatory without being arrested... or sign up to be the women's locker room monitor. I do not have the right to claim this designation by definition. My rights are not being infringed.

To be clear, I am not arguing that morally gays shouldn't have the marriage structure, I am merely saying it is possible to "discriminate" in the conferrence of this structure where it doesn't serve the purpose or meet the definition of the structure.

--You have the right to dislike it, but you do not have the right to deny an equal citizen their rights in the interest of protecting your religious doctrine.
Why is it then ok to deny this right to an equal citizen who happens to be < 18 years old?

--the fact is, the only reason to oppose same-sex marriages is religious doctrine that has convinced you that it is wrong or evil
Really, can I oppose it based on the cost to tax payers for the extra tax deductions? can I oppose it based on 10,000 years of history with no such thing as gay marriage? To declare that all "anti gay marriage" arguments are purely religious is just another liberal wanting to see the world as black and white.

---

I don't hate black people. but i'm not going to ignore the statistics or the double standard. I also don't "hate" gay people.

---

At least Ragorn made an actual attempt to address the issues of my questions.

In rebuttal to polygamy, if its a "right" as gay marriage supporters declare, then what do the pitfalls matter? If you can restrict polygamous marriage based on "pitfalls" why not gay marriage?

In rebuttal to incest, if its a right, then what does the possibility, even probability of genetic mutations matter. What if they agree to just practice anal sex? or be celibate? Would it be ok if they agreed to abort all their pregnancies in teh first trimester? How about if they agree to be sterilized? If its not a right, and we can reasonably restrict the structure of marriage due for this reason sex/procreation (a reasonable moral position in my opinion) then it holds that we can restrict the "right" of marriage for other groups for the right circumstances. Whether that includes gay, we'd have to debate.

In rebuttal to pedophilic marriage, the fact that they haven't developed cognitive ability emotional maturity seems awful arbitrary. Especially since we've already conferred them the right to have sex. They can already be charged as an adult with respect to committing a crime. Also, 200 years ago, we were convinced that black people didn't have sufficient intellectual development to even be considered human. Your argument basically comes down to children can be discriminated against because they aren't as equal to an adult. This would fail as an argument in most moral philosophies.

I don't really see how an animal can give consent to something it presumably doesn't understand either. but for devil's advocate, suppose we used a common law type construct of voluntarily living together, sharing posessions and supporting each other emotionally etc... I saw a video a while ago of a rottweiler, vaginally penetrating a chick of its own free will so we can even add sexual relations in there too. You trying to tell me thats not love?

--

Once you decide that the definition of marriage must be stretched to accomodate gays, you necessarily must apply the same standard to considering other groups. You can't just say gays are equal because they are and others aren't because they aren't. Remember its all about rights and marrying the person you love. and there are men who love little boys and little boys who love their big gay men.

The right solution to this problem is to separate all the legal rights attributed to marriage and instead attribute them to specific legal structures. You don't get to file married, you get to file "filing jointly". You don't get to assign hospital visitation to "immediate family" but to a legal structure of "entities of intimate familiarity"... I would've had a muther fuking fit if they had denied me permission to see Sok's dad before he died. I'm not biological family, but I'm in their family portrait. Why should a gay man get this right, but I don't get it? marriage in America needs to be rethought, but not the way we are doing it.
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:56 pm

Poligamy, bestiality and incest are all illegal, being gay is not. Sounds like a great way to separate that issue right there.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kindi » Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:14 am

should outlaw divorce. number one cause of marriages breaking up!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:28 am

Out of curiosity.. In general, if gay couples would get the same exact rights as married couples by entering into some sort of civil union which would not be considered a 'marriage', would that be satisfactory? Or is being recognized as married a goal in and of itself?

Again on social issues (which I generally consider less important), I often take the liberal side of the argument. In this one as well. There is a societal interest in allowing committed couples, regardless of gender, to formalize their committment. Stable households, gay, straight, or otherwise, is a social positive. As far as I'm concerned let them get married. But something about that word mixed with homosexuality brings up a whole load of baggage. So I wonder if there is a way to keep everyone happy. If gay couples could have the same exact rights as straight in all facets of their lives, would that be enough... or does it have to be called marriage?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ashiwi » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:48 am

Actually you should remove the specialized benefits of marriage from a specific man/woman union. Basically move the legal aspects of marriage mandated by courts of law into the "separation of church and state" arena and leave the institution of marriage as it should be, a union of two (or more) people acting under the rules and enacted under the symbolism of their chosen faith.

Remove the tax benefit from being married and drop it into the cost of supporting a child, where the support of the child comes from two primary caregivers. It takes two people to make a child, one egg, one sperm, so there shouldn't be more people than that getting a tax benefit off of it. Preferably the tax benefit would go to the biological father and mother, but should one of those parties relinquish parental rights, it could be assigned to the other person who is there serving the function of primary/secondary caregiver, where the status of the secondary caregiver would be determined by the primary caregiver and the tax benefit would require documentation of expenditure, or declaration of stay-at-home caregiver.

Correct the laws determining next-of-kin to allow for assignment of next-of-kin status to a chosen individual. In the absence of a will that individual would receive next-of-kin status in the probate of an estate, would be allowed to inherit as the next-of-kin, would become owner of the proprietary information pertaining to the deceased, and would be allowed to make legal determinations in the event the individual becomes unable to perform legal functions or make legal decisions for him/herself.

Allow an adult individual to assign dependent status to another adult sharing the same residence in a consensually partnered relationship with the stipulation that it be registered in a court of law. Once dissolved another legal dependent status cannot be registered for a time period of one year.

Personally, I'd rather see the status of life partner or significant other or split-apart only assigned after a significant time. With marriages failing right and left in the first five to seven years, perhaps a limited partnership assigning dependent status within the first five years with full status granted after that mark, after which the partners would be required to seek legal dissolution with separation of assets.

It's cruel to treat people the way we do because of the way the law is written now. Two people who have shared a life of thirty years should never have to worry about being evicted from a shared home simply because their deceased loved one is the same sex and next-of-kin laws don't allow for same sex partnership. They shouldn't be shut out of arranging a life partner's funeral, sharing their last moments in a hospital, inheriting the savings they helped build when they stayed home and took care of the house and family while the deceased partner worked. Marriages don't last. Many life partnerships do, and those aren't limited to male/female relationships.

You can keep marriages for the religious symbolism, but religion shouldn't enter into the legalities of a consensual partnership between two adults.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ragorn » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:12 pm

Corth wrote:Out of curiosity.. In general, if gay couples would get the same exact rights as married couples by entering into some sort of civil union which would not be considered a 'marriage', would that be satisfactory? Or is being recognized as married a goal in and of itself?

I don't know of any gay people who give a shit about the title. The only ones making a stink about the word "marriage" are the Christians, who are using the definition of the word as an excuse to discriminate.

To wit:

The woman has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex and have that union legally recognized.

There's no lack of rights or a difference in the level of individual rights.

If states started passing constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union between two people of the same race, thereby granting all citizens the right to marry someone of the same race and have that union legally recognized, would that be ok?

Sexual orientation and race are equally protected classes under the law. If one's ok, so is the other.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:27 pm

Ragorn wrote:I don't know of any gay people who give a shit about the title. The only ones making a stink about the word "marriage" are the Christians, who are using the definition of the word as an excuse to discriminate.


I don't know, kind of sounds like "separate but equal" to me...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:37 pm

Pretty much agree with Ashiwi.

I also agree from a moral perspective, gay "marriage" should be allowed. I also believe from a societal stability perspective abortion shouldn't be overruled. That doesn't mean I will support the causes.

Civil Union does seem to be separate but equal which was struck down by the courts. However, for companies there are partnerships, llcs, S corps, C Corps etc etc etc. Each one is basically the same thing, a business, but each one is different in its particulars. Unfortunately, you can't discriminate based on gender so its hard to make a case that a marriage between homos is different than a marriage between hetros. I really think the civil union is the best compromise, but I understand their attempt to obtain "equal" rights.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:44 pm

Well.. 'separate but equal' was never really equal. Black schools were not given the same resources as white schools. Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, etc.

But if gays are given the same EXACT rights in a civil union as hetero couples get in a marriage, then it would be an equal situation, but just a different name for the relationship. 'Marriage' after all, is just a word. If you want to define it as a union between a man and a woman I am fine with that - so long as gays are given the same legal rights in their version.

On the other hand, if the anti-gay marriage position isn't about the use of the word, but rather is about keeping gays from having the same rights as other committed couples... well then I have a real issue with that.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:11 pm

Corth wrote:Well.. 'separate but equal' was never really equal. Black schools were not given the same resources as white schools. Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, etc.

But if gays are given the same EXACT rights in a civil union as hetero couples get in a marriage, then it would be an equal situation, but just a different name for the relationship. 'Marriage' after all, is just a word. If you want to define it as a union between a man and a woman I am fine with that - so long as gays are given the same legal rights in their version.

On the other hand, if the anti-gay marriage position isn't about the use of the word, but rather is about keeping gays from having the same rights as other committed couples... well then I have a real issue with that.


That's the problem Corth, sure if it was exactly the same but with a different name it would probably be ok. But it won't be. Separate is inherently unequal.

The reason black schools were given less resources is that people wanted them to be unequal. The reason Civil Unions won't get the same exact rights is that people want them to be unequal.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:24 pm

Sarvis, show me protests against civil unions having a current marriage right.

Corth, valid point, but if they must be exactly the same and do become exactly the same, then why have 2 different structures? And thats before you start getting into the societal usage of the terms which will take on connontations that don't live in the realm of legality.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:36 pm

kiryan wrote:Sarvis, show me protests against civil unions having a current marriage right.

Corth, valid point, but if they must be exactly the same and do become exactly the same, then why have 2 different structures? And thats before you start getting into the societal usage of the terms which will take on connontations that don't live in the realm of legality.



Took me a grand total of 5 seconds, Kiryan: http://www.praydailyamerica.com/id165.html

Turns out Civil Union's aren't a viable compromise anyway. The reality is that Christians are trying to force other people to live the same way they have chosen to. No compromise will work for them. They don't want people to be gay, so they think they can legislate it away.

Yes, I am aware that rhymes.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:41 pm

kiryan wrote:Sarvis, show me protests against civil unions having a current marriage right.

Corth, valid point, but if they must be exactly the same and do become exactly the same, then why have 2 different structures? And thats before you start getting into the societal usage of the terms which will take on connontations that don't live in the realm of legality.


Why have two different structures? Because the social conservatives are insulted by the idea of two gay men or women being 'married'. Or are they actually insulted by two gay men and women having the same rights as hetero couples? So again, is it the word 'marriage' that's the issue, or the actual legal rights?
Last edited by Corth on Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:44 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:Well.. 'separate but equal' was never really equal. Black schools were not given the same resources as white schools. Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, etc.

But if gays are given the same EXACT rights in a civil union as hetero couples get in a marriage, then it would be an equal situation, but just a different name for the relationship. 'Marriage' after all, is just a word. If you want to define it as a union between a man and a woman I am fine with that - so long as gays are given the same legal rights in their version.

On the other hand, if the anti-gay marriage position isn't about the use of the word, but rather is about keeping gays from having the same rights as other committed couples... well then I have a real issue with that.


That's the problem Corth, sure if it was exactly the same but with a different name it would probably be ok. But it won't be. Separate is inherently unequal.

The reason black schools were given less resources is that people wanted them to be unequal. The reason Civil Unions won't get the same exact rights is that people want them to be unequal.


'Separate but equal' involved bussing kids to entirely different locations. Legal rights do not have any sort of physical difference. For instance, you can get a green card for your spouse on the basis of marriage. Allowing a gay citizen to get a green card for his committed partner would not entail any sort of different structure. Same green card.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:55 pm

If they even write that provision into the civil union law, Corth. I don't think they would... that's my point. It'd end up being some kind of Marriage-Lite package containing some of the important rules, and leaving out others...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:57 pm

Then that wouldn't be acceptable. I am raising a hypothetical situation where the same EXACT rights are conferred upon gays. Marriage light would not be the same exact rights.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:10 pm

Corth wrote:Then that wouldn't be acceptable. I am raising a hypothetical situation where the same EXACT rights are conferred upon gays. Marriage light would not be the same exact rights.


Well, hypothetical situations often remain that way... besides which, in reality that's not acceptable to the thousands of Christians who protested that law in Hawaii... so it still doesn't get us anywhere.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ragorn » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:45 pm

Corth wrote:Why have two different structures? Because the social conservatives are insulted by the idea of two gay men or women being 'married'. Or are they actually insulted by two gay men and women having the same rights as hetero couples? So again, is it the word 'marriage' that's the issue, or the actual legal rights?

I think you hear it both ways depending on who you talk to. There are likely some conservatives who just get hung up on the word itself; I know my father favors same-sex civil unions but stops short of wanting to use the word "marriage." More often though, the argument centers around the idea that homosexuality itself is inherently "unnatural." You get a lot of "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" sorts of arguments.

As a straight liberal who favors gay rights, I'm happy to make the concession that the word "marriage" be reserved for hetero couples, as long as "civil unions" are afforded a literally identical set of rights and benefits. And in ten years, if we continue to see discrimination against couples in civil unions, then we force the issue and redefine the word "marriage" to stop giving bigots a vehicle for their discrimination.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:08 pm

Sarvis wrote:If they even write that provision into the civil union law, Corth. I don't think they would... that's my point. It'd end up being some kind of Marriage-Lite package containing some of the important rules, and leaving out others...


Basically what Corth is trying to say is that Marriage and Civil Union are only different in name, but they use the same legal rules. On tax programs there would be a check box that would look like "Are you married or in a civil union?' instead of "Are you married?" Nothing changes for marriage, and civil unions are automatically granted equality through simply adding them as a checkbox to every legal right that marriagear are afforded. In writing the laws, you would copy every marriage law and right and simply substitute Civil Union where Marriage used to be.

Corth, I think the major concern for Christians isn't the word, well, at least that isn't how it started. Consensus now days has probably twisted the original arguments, so this is probably how the common Christian views it due to information loss through the telephone game; however, the argument is, in part, that the formation of a union between two people is a religious idea per se. Only relatively recently has this become a secular institution. Language is truly peripheral to the argument, but it has become the argument as the language has been twisted due to lack of knowledge or understanding -- the argument has been simplified to "marriage is a religious union, and our religion doesn't allow for gay marriage." So, by having a man/man or woman/woman enter into a formalized union is an abomination of the original concept -- there shouldn't be much debate there, and history is quite the cure for it.

If we put it into condensed language we get:

1. formalization of relationships began with the church (with respect to eurocentric countries) for the purpose of procreation and allowance for sexual gratification without it being a sin.
2. Love enters into the equation.
3. Love becomes the primary purpose for marriage; however, since the archaic reasoning is not in jeopardy, it is simply added upon.
4. Marriage becomes a legal issue due to property rights and custody rights; therefore, the governments create laws to protect these rights.
5. Gay marriage enters here at some point due to the rights afforded by #4, and some would argue simply because of #4, but the social acceptance argument is there as well. What the Christians argue is not 4, or 3 or 2 for the most part, but #1 -- even if the reasoning is archaic, and has been trampled upon by rampant divorce anyway.

So, on technical grounds, you can somewhat see where the church is coming from, but I think the heart of the argument lies solely in exclusivity rather than religious insult -- being as there have been many transgressions against the institution which desires to uphold it. In essence, if they haven't broken the laws yet, they refuse to allow others to.

The counter to that argument has largely been pointing out the hypocrisy of that statement, that the concept of marriage has evolved and is no longer exclusive or reliant upon religion -- that is has become primarily secular and the religious aspect begins and ends with formal ceremony. But, since religion is so entrenched in the perception of marriage, it is hard to separate the two in both language and idea -- which is the only hurdle for any change in laws.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:15 pm

good post kifle.

I would like to see marriage stricken from legal vocabulary and instead recognize only civil unions that are structured to meet specific legal and societal "needs". You would apply for a "civil union" license at a court house, and have your religious "marriage" separately. Get rid of the whole minister signing your marriage license as well.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:19 pm

Kifle wrote:Basically what Corth is trying to say is that Marriage and Civil Union are only different in name, but they use the same legal rules. On tax programs there would be a check box that would look like "Are you married or in a civil union?' instead of "Are you married?" Nothing changes for marriage, and civil unions are automatically granted equality through simply adding them as a checkbox to every legal right that marriagear are afforded. In writing the laws, you would copy every marriage law and right and simply substitute Civil Union where Marriage used to be.


I understand what he's saying, I just find it completely unrealistic.


1. formalization of relationships began with the church (with respect to eurocentric countries) for the purpose of procreation and allowance for sexual gratification without it being a sin.
2. Love enters into the equation.
3. Love becomes the primary purpose for marriage; however, since the archaic reasoning is not in jeopardy, it is simply added upon.
4. Marriage becomes a legal issue due to property rights and custody rights; therefore, the governments create laws to protect these rights.
5. Gay marriage enters here at some point due to the rights afforded by #4, and some would argue simply because of #4, but the social acceptance argument is there as well. What the Christians argue is not 4, or 3 or 2 for the most part, but #1 -- even if the reasoning is archaic, and has been trampled upon by rampant divorce anyway.


I'd say 3 is probably a big part of it.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:28 pm

Actually, if anyone's bothered to notice, the state institution of marriage is applied exactly the same across all religions, including the agnostic and the atheist.

That should take care of all the religious nonsense.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:36 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:Actually, if anyone's bothered to notice, the state institution of marriage is applied exactly the same across all religions, including the agnostic and the atheist.

That should take care of all the religious nonsense.


But the societal view is still unchanged in that marriage is a religious institution. Slowly this is being weeded out in that many couples choose non-traditional wedding spots rather than churches, increase in the number of courthouse marriages, etc. While I agree that religion should be a non-issue, many laws state that officiating a union between a man/man or woman/woman results in loss of license, a fine, sometimes jail time, and a dissolution of the union. So while the laws aren't themselves religious, they are created and maintained by religious people; therefore, they are interpreted, and changed to suit religion as need be.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:39 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Kifle wrote:Basically what Corth is trying to say is that Marriage and Civil Union are only different in name, but they use the same legal rules. On tax programs there would be a check box that would look like "Are you married or in a civil union?' instead of "Are you married?" Nothing changes for marriage, and civil unions are automatically granted equality through simply adding them as a checkbox to every legal right that marriagear are afforded. In writing the laws, you would copy every marriage law and right and simply substitute Civil Union where Marriage used to be.


I understand what he's saying, I just find it completely unrealistic.


1. formalization of relationships began with the church (with respect to eurocentric countries) for the purpose of procreation and allowance for sexual gratification without it being a sin.
2. Love enters into the equation.
3. Love becomes the primary purpose for marriage; however, since the archaic reasoning is not in jeopardy, it is simply added upon.
4. Marriage becomes a legal issue due to property rights and custody rights; therefore, the governments create laws to protect these rights.
5. Gay marriage enters here at some point due to the rights afforded by #4, and some would argue simply because of #4, but the social acceptance argument is there as well. What the Christians argue is not 4, or 3 or 2 for the most part, but #1 -- even if the reasoning is archaic, and has been trampled upon by rampant divorce anyway.


I'd say 3 is probably a big part of it.


What exactly is unrealistic about it? To me it makes the most sense and offends the least amount of people. Sure, it is slightly less efficient, but it is easier to get public support for this rather than blatantly attacking a religious institution with millions defending the assault. With issues such as these, compromise is generally the only solution as a full force attack will cause the other side to fight even harder.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:42 pm

kiryan wrote:good post kifle.

I would like to see marriage stricken from legal vocabulary and instead recognize only civil unions that are structured to meet specific legal and societal "needs". You would apply for a "civil union" license at a court house, and have your religious "marriage" separately. Get rid of the whole minister signing your marriage license as well.


I fully agree with this. It would stay true to separation of church and state, keep the religious institution intact, and allow for gay unions. Everyone wins, and nobody truly loses -- except maybe the church in that they no longer have the ability to formalize legal contracts, but that is a worthless power for the most part anyway.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:44 pm

Corth wrote:Out of curiosity.. In general, if gay couples would get the same exact rights as married couples by entering into some sort of civil union which would not be considered a 'marriage', would that be satisfactory? Or is being recognized as married a goal in and of itself?

Again on social issues (which I generally consider less important), I often take the liberal side of the argument. In this one as well. There is a societal interest in allowing committed couples, regardless of gender, to formalize their committment. Stable households, gay, straight, or otherwise, is a social positive. As far as I'm concerned let them get married. But something about that word mixed with homosexuality brings up a whole load of baggage. So I wonder if there is a way to keep everyone happy. If gay couples could have the same exact rights as straight in all facets of their lives, would that be enough... or does it have to be called marriage?

It would probably not be satisfactory for a large number of advocates. For many advocates of gay marriage, this fight is about having their relationships respected as if they were equal to the relationship of marriage. Many advocates are driven by the fact that they can't even get their own friends and family to see their relationship as being deserving of the same level of respect as a traditional marriage.

For many advocates, they will never stop until they've forced others through government to accept the equality of their relationship.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:48 pm

Kifle wrote:
What exactly is unrealistic about it?


The part where people stop discriminating because a compromise was reached.

To me it makes the most sense and offends the least amount of people.


I'm sure the same exact thing was said about "separate but equal" when it was first proposed.

Sure, it is slightly less efficient, but it is easier to get public support for this rather than blatantly attacking a religious institution with millions defending the assault


Allowing more people to engage in an institution is hardly an attack upon that institution.

. With issues such as these, compromise is generally the only solution as a full force attack will cause the other side to fight even harder.



Christians don't want Civil Unions either, so the compromise doesn't work anyway.

Look, this is simple... unless you allow people the exact same access you are disciminating. If you give gays Civil Unions, legislators will make the definition of Civil Union something similar to but not quite entirely unlike Marriage.

Corth mentioned Green Cards before... how easy would it be for lawmakers to go: "Green cards are granted so that parents can remain together once they have children, but gay couples can't actually have children so they don't need that right." Yeah, a lot of people will talk about adoption at that point but the law will be written, rights will be less, and it will not be equal.

It's easy enough to SAY you can have a separate law that grants equal rights, but it's a lot harder to actually DO.

I fully agree with this. It would stay true to separation of church and state, keep the religious institution intact, and allow for gay unions. Everyone wins, and nobody truly loses -- except maybe the church in that they no longer have the ability to formalize legal contracts, but that is a worthless power for the most part anyway.


And the Christians who, at heart, just don't want people to be gay under any circumstances. That's why the Civil Union law in Hawaii was protested. Nothing will actually appease them, other than time living with it so they can see it won't really change anything in their lives. What they don't understand is that if all gay people could get married tomorrow, their world doesn't actually change at all. The gay couples who live together will still be living together, the ones who don't won't be. The married men who are too afraid to admit they are gay will still be too afraid to admit they are gay.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:32 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Kifle wrote:
What exactly is unrealistic about it?


The part where people stop discriminating because a compromise was reached.

To me it makes the most sense and offends the least amount of people.


I'm sure the same exact thing was said about "separate but equal" when it was first proposed.

Sure, it is slightly less efficient, but it is easier to get public support for this rather than blatantly attacking a religious institution with millions defending the assault


Allowing more people to engage in an institution is hardly an attack upon that institution.

. With issues such as these, compromise is generally the only solution as a full force attack will cause the other side to fight even harder.



Christians don't want Civil Unions either, so the compromise doesn't work anyway.

Look, this is simple... unless you allow people the exact same access you are disciminating. If you give gays Civil Unions, legislators will make the definition of Civil Union something similar to but not quite entirely unlike Marriage.

Corth mentioned Green Cards before... how easy would it be for lawmakers to go: "Green cards are granted so that parents can remain together once they have children, but gay couples can't actually have children so they don't need that right." Yeah, a lot of people will talk about adoption at that point but the law will be written, rights will be less, and it will not be equal.

It's easy enough to SAY you can have a separate law that grants equal rights, but it's a lot harder to actually DO.

I fully agree with this. It would stay true to separation of church and state, keep the religious institution intact, and allow for gay unions. Everyone wins, and nobody truly loses -- except maybe the church in that they no longer have the ability to formalize legal contracts, but that is a worthless power for the most part anyway.


And the Christians who, at heart, just don't want people to be gay under any circumstances. That's why the Civil Union law in Hawaii was protested. Nothing will actually appease them, other than time living with it so they can see it won't really change anything in their lives. What they don't understand is that if all gay people could get married tomorrow, their world doesn't actually change at all. The gay couples who live together will still be living together, the ones who don't won't be. The married men who are too afraid to admit they are gay will still be too afraid to admit they are gay.


Sarvis, you can't help discrimination no matter what you do. Look at civil rights, yet there is still racism. It's the same principle. You do what you can as the era allows. At this point, there is an allowance for gay marriage, depending upon how you approach it. Forcing your way into a religious institution is not that way. Going through the backdoor is.

Yes, separate but equal was not the best compromise, but it got the wheels turning, and, eventually, equality was reached. You act as if a step in the right direction is no step at all. If you want to play the all or nothing game with the government, you'll be sorely disappointed your entire life. Hell, in any walk of life you will be disappointed. If I went into negotiations like they do on TV "Lolz, you give me this or I walk", I would be one horrible negotiator, and I wouldn't have the job I do.

Allowing people into an institution where they are explicitly banned by the institution inherently is an attack on that institution. You need to realized that the reality of the matter is that marriage in the church and marriage in the state are intertwined to the point, socially, that they cannot be spoken of independently of each other for the majority of people. It just wont happen. Social views change very slowly, and any attempt to force this will be met with harsh opposition -- that is just the reality of the matter.

And, you're right, Christians don't want civil unions, but you know what they want even less? Gay marriage. Which one do you think has the better chance of being passed through government? Furthermore, gay marriage shouldn't be allowed anyway. I'm sorry, but marriage IS a religious institution and it specifically denounces such acts in the governing literature. Civil Union is all you will ever get... ever. And if the gay community ever gets their unions called "marriage", it would be a very large slight on the Christian community, like them or not. So you would essentially have a hyper correction on the liberal end, which is just as bad as refusing legal formalization of a gay relationship to the extent that they enjoy the rights and freedoms of straight married couples. The only thing that pisses me off more than ultra-conservative bigotry is ultra-liberal hyper-corrections -- such as that ass trying to butcher Twain's work. It's all fucking nonsense and only prolongs toxic societal views on things they they don't take part in.

Now, regardless of whether or not the gay community would use rights such as green cards for their children is moot. As I said, take EVERY marriage law, replace the word marriage with civil union, and you have two sets of equal laws. THERE IS NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE. I don't see how this is hard. It's called proactive legislation, and a great example would be the Federal Analogue Act, so please do not counter back with something along the lines of, "they wouldn't do that". I don't care if they would or wouldn't, this is a hypothetical. This is equality as far as the government to give it. You should not force the government to infringe upon religion as much as you should not force government to infringe upon the non-religious.

Now, whether or not the Christian conglomerate has a problem with civil unions is peripheral to the matter. Once you secularize the unions, they have no grounds. Remove religion from the governmental recognition, and you have a problem solved. Yes, many of the christians will be very butthurt about it, but they are powerless to respond with any semblance of dignity. Politically, you have weakened your opponent. Force your way in like many of the activists have tried and you strengthen your opponent. Pursue gay marriage and you will get strong opposition whom have strong logical argument and a rational claim for action. Pursue civil union and you will have a weak opposition whom have weak logical arguments and no rational claim for action.

You are an idealist with no eye for strategy or political posturing. You and those like you are part of the very reason this has progressed as slowly as it has. Who do you think had better success in the civil rights movments, Martin Luther King Jr. or the black panthers? I'll give you one guess as to why.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:37 pm

Kifle wrote:Sarvis, you can't help discrimination no matter what you do. Look at civil rights, yet there is still racism. It's the same principle. You do what you can as the era allows. At this point, there is an allowance for gay marriage, depending upon how you approach it. Forcing your way into a religious institution is not that way. Going through the backdoor is.

Yes, separate but equal was not the best compromise, but it got the wheels turning, and, eventually, equality was reached. You act as if a step in the right direction is no step at all. If you want to play the all or nothing game with the government, you'll be sorely disappointed your entire life. Hell, in any walk of life you will be disappointed. If I went into negotiations like they do on TV "Lolz, you give me this or I walk", I would be one horrible negotiator, and I wouldn't have the job I do.

Allowing people into an institution where they are explicitly banned by the institution inherently is an attack on that institution. You need to realized that the reality of the matter is that marriage in the church and marriage in the state are intertwined to the point, socially, that they cannot be spoken of independently of each other for the majority of people. It just wont happen. Social views change very slowly, and any attempt to force this will be met with harsh opposition -- that is just the reality of the matter.

And, you're right, Christians don't want civil unions, but you know what they want even less? Gay marriage. Which one do you think has the better chance of being passed through government? Furthermore, gay marriage shouldn't be allowed anyway. I'm sorry, but marriage IS a religious institution and it specifically denounces such acts in the governing literature. Civil Union is all you will ever get... ever. And if the gay community ever gets their unions called "marriage", it would be a very large slight on the Christian community, like them or not. So you would essentially have a hyper correction on the liberal end, which is just as bad as refusing legal formalization of a gay relationship to the extent that they enjoy the rights and freedoms of straight married couples. The only thing that pisses me off more than ultra-conservative bigotry is ultra-liberal hyper-corrections -- such as that ass trying to butcher Twain's work. It's all fucking nonsense and only prolongs toxic societal views on things they they don't take part in.

Now, regardless of whether or not the gay community would use rights such as green cards for their children is moot. As I said, take EVERY marriage law, replace the word marriage with civil union, and you have two sets of equal laws. THERE IS NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE. I don't see how this is hard. It's called proactive legislation, and a great example would be the Federal Analogue Act, so please do not counter back with something along the lines of, "they wouldn't do that". I don't care if they would or wouldn't, this is a hypothetical. This is equality as far as the government to give it. You should not force the government to infringe upon religion as much as you should not force government to infringe upon the non-religious.

Now, whether or not the Christian conglomerate has a problem with civil unions is peripheral to the matter. Once you secularize the unions, they have no grounds. Remove religion from the governmental recognition, and you have a problem solved. Yes, many of the christians will be very butthurt about it, but they are powerless to respond with any semblance of dignity. Politically, you have weakened your opponent. Force your way in like many of the activists have tried and you strengthen your opponent. Pursue gay marriage and you will get strong opposition whom have strong logical argument and a rational claim for action. Pursue civil union and you will have a weak opposition whom have weak logical arguments and no rational claim for action.

You are an idealist with no eye for strategy or political posturing. You and those like you are part of the very reason this has progressed as slowly as it has. Who do you think had better success in the civil rights movments, Martin Luther King Jr. or the black panthers? I'll give you one guess as to why.

Nuance has no place in this forum, sir.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:22 pm

--For many advocates, they will never stop until they've forced others through government to accept the equality of their relationship.

This is extremely true. They want to force me to recognize the equality of their marriage relationship. I will never do that you can't make me. So good luck.

We just had all sorts of butt hurt over "blood libel" in a I think accurate usage. However, words like" blood libel" and" holocaust" are fiercely protected like Marriage. Hell Susan G Komen is suing everyone and their brother for using "for the cure".

---

BTW, the debate will not end once marriage and civil unions are rightfully separated. It ought to just be getting started once we remove all the religious crap (from the liberal side and the conservative side). We need to evaluate which rights are attributed to civil unions and why. Why is there a "marriage tax break". Why are 2 people living together unable to file jointly while two people married/civil union able to? What is the purpose of limiting the tax break to only people who have a legal contract between them?

Same thing as I mentioned before with hospital visitation... Why should I be denied a chance to visit my "loved ones" just because I'm not biologically related or have a legal contract for a marriage/civil union? Marriage has been a convenient legal vehicle, but it results in loopholes and artificial constraints that have no relation to the actual right beign conferred.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:21 am

Religious ideals clearly influence the law - and they are certainly allowed to. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In no way does this mean that Congress can't make a law based on religious influences, values, or ideas.

The founding fathers were careful to try to establish a more secular society as a means by which to promote religious and other freedoms. It ended up being pretty secular, with a lot of influence coming from the Quakers and their ideals of tolerance and pacifism (haha, yes, we fought a huge war for independence, but it was still a lasting influence upon the United States).

Aside from the fact that many religious values and ideas are simply good ones for society, freedom without religious influence indicates, rather, a false freedom or lack of freedom.

People need to learn to accept the religious influences around them, if they expect others to accept them. A US soldier will die for the pacifist's right to protest what he gave his life for. Gays can learn to get along with Christians and accept that their relationships won't be recognized as being equal until that reputation is earned and deserved. Christians need to remember or learn how to be Christians.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kwirl » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:12 pm

why do people keep saying that gays have to 'earn' or 'deserve' these rights?
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:16 pm

Because it's not a right to have your special relationship respected. By anybody.

If you are lucky, the work was done for you. If not, you are lucky enough to have to do the work yourself.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ragorn » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:11 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:Because it's not a right to have your special relationship respected. By anybody.

Actually, it is. And the "fight" is ensuring that everybody respects that relationship. Even people who don't want to :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests