|
|
|
|
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 5:50:09 PM | Well said. I agree. But we arent talking about individuals such as myself, we are talking about the authority of the Church, and its right to govern religious ceremonies and the governments responsibility to protect the Churches authority.
Actually, we are talking about the authority of the state, not the church. The government has no obligation to protect the authority of any church. In fact, it has a responsibility to refrain from doing so in order to protect the rights of individual church members like you to practice your religion without governmental interference.
My sin is not on trial neither do I willfully disobey God daily and then stand in the face of my Church and demand that they except my sin and call it "an old OT Law", simply because I want my faith and eat it too.
No one is suggesting that you or your church embrace any behavior that you find repugnant. You can denounce it all until the cows come home. What you may not do, if you want to preserve your own freedom to practice your religion, is involve the state in your desire to punish it. The only basis whereby the state has any interest whatsoever is if a person's rights are being violated or her or his property interest is being unduly damaged.
As far as your faith goes, you can either follow the letter of the law or the spirit. If you choose to follow the letter because you believe that best expresses your intention to follow the spirit, that is an admirable choice. If others see a higher principle at work, one that allows them to look past behavior to embrace love that appears in a different form than what you are used to, their doing so does not make them venal in the way that you suggest. The fact that you go there indicates a tendency toward judgmentalism that you might want to look at. These people are not "willfully disobeying God," they are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and your failure to see their situation or show any compasion for it whatsoever--more than anything else--leads me to question the basis of your faith. That brand of Christianity does not become you.
Besides, true Christianity does not need governmental protection. Even the power of Eternal Rome was not adequate to subdue it, because the essential message of God's love for us is simply undeniable.
So who is it who wants their cake and wants to eat it too? The people who just want their love to be recognized as equally binding as yours? Or the people who value their so-called God-given authority so much that they would deny the rights of others in order to keep it.
God's gifts to His children are all different and to reduce His written Word to "manual" is insulting.
I couldn't agree more. But then, I don't use it that way. I actually think about what it says and how I can follow the essential principles it expresses.
Judging the motives of Christains is judgemental and is what Pharisees would do.
Oh my. Well, if you actually read those Gospels and the history of the time, you may find out that the Pharisees were the sect that advocated a legalistic approach to spiritual life. Christ specifically denounced that approach. You might also read a bit further to find out that Paul, in fact, was a Pharisee. I believe this was mentioned in the Book of Acts.
As someone who does not claim to be a Christian, I am telling you about the impression that the conduct of some self-proclaimed Christians leaves with me. I have said on several occasions already that I draw a distinction between Christians and false Christians. Did you forget that? Since your job as a self-proclaimed Christian is to bear witness your faith in the world, you might want to consider this honest feedback from a member of your audience.
So, are you really telling us all that you believe that you are entitled to an authority you don't need, so that you can interfere with the harmless behavior of consenting adults by denying them the right to legally specify their own next of kin, just to satisfy the requirements of a doctrine that, by your own definition, is worthless unless it is entered into freely by each individual person?
Is that what Christianity really means to you? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 7:43:49 PM | Get mad baby said...
"Yes! Separate but equal, a great idea! Then we can have same sex water fountains, bathrooms, and we can give them all certain seats on the buses...
See where I'm going?"
Well put, gave me a good chuckle. Unfortunately what I am speaking on could be done without discrimination. The states/US goverment would make all the legalities equal of each marriage union. But each certificate would represent a different union. One for recognizing the union of a male and female, the other recognizing the union of same sex but specifying male to male or female to female. There is no discrimination there.
It could work! | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 7:53:14 PM | In theory, montanan, I think you are correct that it would be the same thing, and the government would say that they are all equal.
But I don't know why one would need to. It should not make any kind of a difference.
That is like having two people walk into a bank with a paycheck from the exact same place for the exact same amount, and the bank paying one in US currency and the other being paid in Canadian currency after figuring out how much it would be with the exchange rate. It just doesn't make sense. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 8:04:49 PM | It preserves the semantic distinction that allows people who want to maintain exclusive claim to "legitimate" love vs. love that they believe is illicit.
It's OK for the state to allow "civil unions" becasue we all know that those are just fake marriages anyway. We'll _never_ allow "those" people to enter into the sactified state of matrimony. That's only for "good" people ... like us--not depraved animals like them.
Montanan, I don't think you're like that. But there are plenty who are, and I don't think you improve matters by running political interference for them.
"Separate but equal" isn't. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 9:31:21 PM | Ooohhhh, another good chuckle. Thankyou MrMan. Good post.
Lets look at it this way, consider how many different driving licenses there are. Why don't we just lump all driving licenses under one catagory so no matter who you are, once you have a drivers license you can legally drive anything even if you don't know how to drive it. Now if you do drive something you don't know how to drive, you will be assuming all legal/criminal legalities.
Now lets consider this as it does happen in courts today. If you are a hetro couple, married and have kids and split, there are laws for that divorce especially concerning the kids that are a bit different then say if two males marry, bring a child into the relationship and then divorce or say if two females marry, one uses artificial insemination and becomes pregnate and they divorce. I could go on but I won't. Hetro unions and same sex unions shall have some differences that will have to be handled differently in courts of divorce. In a hetro divorce with both parents being the biological parents of the children, it is a matter of proving who can provide better. Women usually win this one. But in a same sex marriage, what if the two parents raise a child who is the biological child of one parent but not the other and years later they divorce while the child is young and the non-biological parent fights for the child? Will the court discriminate because that parent isn't the biological parent? And what if a same sex marriage couple divorces with adopted children??? Similarites as a hetro divorce yes, but still with differences.
Well if the courts were to give a certificate of a marriage befitting the type of special union at hand be it hetro or homo, that would not be discrimination. That would be fair treatment all the way across the board. And like with driving licenses, with seperate certificates any research needed or wanting to be done of a specific type of marriage be it hetro, gay or lesbian would be more accessible then if all three unions were lumped in one catagory. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 9:44:59 PM |
But in a same sex marriage, what if the two parents raise a child who is the biological child of one parent but not the other and years later they divorce while the child is young and the non-biological parent fights for the child? Will the court discriminate because that parent isn't the biological parent? And what if a same sex marriage couple divorces with adopted children???
These scenarios all come up in heterosexual divorce cases already. In California, a child born to a married couple is presumed to be the child of both parents regardless of biology. That presumption can be challenged by another adult claiming parental rights, but the claim has to be proven and the decision regarding custody, even after such proof is made, will be based on the best interests of the child. There is no need to change the precedents that have already been set for nonbiological parents who have been granted parental rights by operation of law.
There is _no_ functional difference between a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple where child custody is concerned, and therefore no logical reason for a legal distinction between a "marriage" and a "civil union."
But keep reaching! The more you do, the more opportunities you provide to demonstrate that there really is no legal basis for continuing to denying same-sex couples their right to marry--just like anyone else. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 9:48:19 PM |
Montanan, I don't think you're like that. But there are plenty who are, and I don't think you improve matters by running political interference for them.
"Separate but equal" isn't.
Why not?
Why is separate not equal?
Are you saying that if two groups are separate , then , different outcomes would follow?
Are you questioning absolute equality ? ... which is the very foundation of the mental disease known as political correctness?
The Trees
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson
There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunligh
And the oaks ignore their pleas
The trouble with the maples
(and they’re quite convinced they’re right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can’t help their feelings
If they like the way they’re made
And they wonder why the maples
Can’t be happy in their shade?
There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream `oppression!`
And the oaks, just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
’the oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light’
Now there’s no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw ...
| |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 10:26:14 PM | A most excellent post Troother. The poem was befitting.
MrMann said.....
"These scenarios all come up in heterosexual divorce cases already."
I am aware of that already. I was the product of a hetro divorce at thirteen. The problem here that has not arrived as a "legally marriage divorce" case of same sex with kids is that it has not happened so we will know if the hetro divorce laws will fit tit for tat to a same sex divorce.
In a hetro divorce, kids are usually given to the female because of that reason. Few states lean towards the male getting custody for any reason. The female can be an alcoholic, etc., but if she straightens up she will usually get the kids. If a male is an alcoholic, etc, he'll next to never get those kids even if he straightens up.
Now in a same sex marriage that is in a divorce case of say two women with full custody rights to the child, the judge will have to decide who gets the child based on different criteria then he would use in a hetro case. The same in a same sex marriage that is in a divorce case of two men with full custody rights to the child, the judge will have to decide who gets the child based on different criteria then he would use in a hetro case.
You may think and assume these three divorces are basically the same as even I do but, they are going to be very different in considering who gets a child when it is two men or two women fighting over one or more children. Unlike a hetro divorce where the female gets the kids because she is mother, the nurturer, (google why females end up with kids and males don't) a same sex divorce concerning kids will not be able to be judged on sex at all but who is the best person to take care of the kids.
By the way, I have never in this thread tried to prove or demonstrate that there really is no legal basis for continuing to denying same-sex couples their right to marry. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:19:50 AM | Very cute, poem, Troother.
However, the analogy misses. Oaks are adapted to full sun and maples are understory trees. They really can't handle full sun until they're fully grown.
"Separate but equal" is political cover for elitism. It's throwing the dogs a bone. Just one problem with that approach. Other people aren't dogs. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:22:36 AM | I regret that it came to that for them, but I either serve the people in a public service job, or I don't. If I prefer to serve my own private religious interests, I don't belong in a public service job.
These are only licenced through the province so the marriages will be legal. The commisioners are independant the same as a preist, rabbi or reverend. If they were government employees there would be no question, they would have no choice.
Yes, things were certainly more convenient and "hospitiable" for an elite minority before all those other people got uppity and started asserting their rights, but really, they either were within their rights to expect equal treatment under law and custom or they weren't
Equal treatment is not the same as preferential treatment. Arguing that because a certain minor group had an advantage for a while that all so called minorities have to be held above those perceived to be from that first group for a time equal to or surpassing what the original group enjoyed is just as wrong. These groups push for more than equal. That is what hurts society, you can't right a wrong with another wrong. If you want a true minority it is me. I am the only me on earth so why are my rights trampled to accomodate the rights of the perceived minority groups if the individual is to come before the whole? I pray for the day i receive equal treatment under law and from the self proclaimed righteous left. I find your left far less accomodating than any i've met from the right. The right believes in the rights of all while the left believes in their rights only and those who choose not to follow their doctrine are quickly labeled as bigots or racist or what have you. In politics they are always first and worst with the scare tactics and dirty politics.
But, if you intened to argue that such commitments are only for _some_ people and not others, I'm afraid that position no longer has much credence.
Nowhere in that post did i say one word suggesting anyone should be preferred in marriage nor banned from marriage. It was simply an indication of what has happened here to show what may happen if the new laws are not enacted properly or overzealously. I don't care how the family is constituted ... gay, lesbian, hetero, interacial none of that matters. It is how that family conducts itself in community that matters. Families that are active together and with their extended families will also be more involved in community and a bigger benifit to themselves and society as a whole. In my opinion based on what i have witnessed myself.
There is nothing wrong with Peace, Love, Understanding, Justice, and Equality. There is an awful lot wrong with those who ridicule such ideals, and who set people against each other in order to profit from their strife.
Yes and i find both the far left and far right equally guilty of this but i also find the moderates almost the same except the left has fewer moderates. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:24:40 AM |
The same in a same sex marriage that is in a divorce case of two men with full custody rights to the child, the judge will have to decide who gets the child based on different criteria then he would use in a hetro case.
Not necessarily. How does this differ in any material way from a case in which both parents have full-time careers? It used to be that courts did not award joint custody, but these days that is an option that is used much more often.
In any event, the criterion for awarding custody is the same: it is the best interests of the children as indicated by the material and emotional capacities of the adults involved in the dispute. In some ways a same-sex custody dispute will be easier for a judge to determine because the old stereotypes about women being naturally better parents than men won't bias the judge's opinion. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:33:32 AM | Nowhere in that post did i say one word suggesting anyone should be preferred in marriage nor banned from marriage. It was simply an indication of what has happened here to show what may happen if the new laws are not enacted properly or overzealously. I don't care how the family is constituted ... gay, lesbian, hetero, interacial none of that matters. It is how that family conducts itself in community that matters. Families that are active together and with their extended families will also be more involved in community and a bigger benifit to themselves and society as a whole. In my opinion based on what i have witnessed myself.
Ah! Well then, please allow me to beg your pardon. I misunderstood your intention. I completely agree that families who foster community participation do society good.
I also tend to think that families who foster elitism of any form --left, right, green, purple-- harm society.
There is nothing wrong with Peace, Love, Understanding, Justice, and Equality. There is an awful lot wrong with those who ridicule such ideals, and who set people against each other in order to profit from their strife.
Yes and i find both the far left and far right equally guilty of this but i also find the moderates almost the same except the left has fewer moderates.
Well, we might have to agree to disagree on those proportions. LOL!!! | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:39:46 AM | Equal treatment is not the same as preferential treatment. Arguing that because a certain minor group had an advantage for a while that all so called minorities have to be held above those perceived to be from that first group for a time equal to or surpassing what the original group enjoyed is just as wrong. These groups push for more than equal.
I don't believe that the people who are advocating for gay marriage are asking for anything beyond what heterosexual couples already enjoy.
When you say, "these groups," it appears that you are lumping them all together and passing a negative judgement without considering each one on the merits. Why would you dismiss a call for justice out of hand if you want to live in a just society?
To what extent does your seeming willingness to ignore the possibly legitimate concerns of other community members contribute to the breakdown of your community? Maybe you are perfectly willing to hear them all out, but if you are giving others the impression that you aren't, that alone damages the fabric of society.
Doesn't it? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:49:43 AM |
"Separate but equal" is political cover for elitism. It's throwing the dogs a bone. Just one problem with that approach. Other people aren't dogs.
I think you've totally misunderstood the workings of real political power . It is the e$tablishment elite that want to mix everyone up in one big "absolute equality" stew .
Did you miss the fact that "gay marriage" is being foisted on society from above ?
Isn't that what this thread is about? The elite undemocratically deciding ALL of societies morality? The establishment is deciding what is good for all of the "dogs."
It's ironic , the definition of "dog" is mixed breed .
I prefer a world of variety and diversity. We have learned what the anti-human nature quest for "absolute equality" results in : totalitarian socialism .
However, the analogy misses. Oaks are adapted to full sun and maples are understory trees. They really can't handle full sun until they're fully grown.
Oh no , the Rush song "The trees" fits perfectly here , as it spells out the contradiction that is inherint to political correctness and socialism in general.
A most excellent post Troother. The poem was befitting.
Thanks montanan ,
Watch out , it won't be long before they "axe" your right to free speech.
| |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 1:25:27 AM | It's very interesting to see how differences in perspective play out.
I think that the gay couples who sued weren't pawns of the elite. I think if you looked into it, you'd find that they were subjected to harrassment, unjustified firings, shunning from family members, and all sorts of crap that you and I have never had to deal with.
I also think that elites maintain their power by "divide and conquer" tactics more than anything else. So a "separate but equal" approach plays into their hands because it does not resolve the strife--it perpetuates it.
They tell _you_ that those bad Lefty elitists are trying to encroach on territory that used to be seen as yours. The tell the Lefties that you're all a bunch of bigots who deserve to lose even those privileges that you have rightly earned.
Meanwhile, they sell us on all sorts of wasteful nonsense because we're all too riled up to think straight. (Studies show that people who are frightened or angry are less capable of rational problem solving than those who are calm.)
If we make a stand for simple justice, we'll all do all right. If we keep listening to people who feed us reasons to disdain each other, our grandchildren will be the ones to go hungry when the oil runs out.
We have much more cause to cooperate with each other and think for ourselves about the quality of life that we want for our grandchildren than any previous generation. Anything that distracts us from the urgent need to switch to a sustainable lifestyle is a threat to those grandchildren. After all, they cannot create the conditions under which they will be born--it is our duty to plan ahead for them. So, let's get this marriage inequality nonsense settled in the most inclusive way possible and get on with our real business of creating a society in which all of our grandchildren will have enough food. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 2:08:45 AM | Montanan:
As far as what I am seeing of this issue Ezzee that is the underlying problem is that certain people, religious/non-religious types do not want same sex marriages or any other type of human union equated with a hetro marriage license. This is beyond bigotry/non-bigotry. This deals with a base human belief of many that the hetro license should not be shared. Note the word 'shared' that I used. These people do not want to share this license with any other union. That is the actual main argument if you read between the lines because these same people in many instances have shown they have no problems with supporting other unions having their own license with the same/similar legalities attached to that license.
Your idea sounds like an attempt to mark out the heterosexual unions as being of greater value than the homosexual ones. I think that is debatable. The marriage license means whatever it means to the different parties involved. Would you deem the marriages of a six times wed serial monogomist as being of more value than a lifetime gay partnership?
Should sincerely forged, lifelong partnerships share a certificate with couples who change partners like they change their cars, or don't you mind that one? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 2:14:52 AM | I think that the gay couples who sued weren't pawns of the elite.
I am certain they are just pawns.
I think if you looked into it, you'd find that they were subjected to harrassment, unjustified firings, shunning from family members, and all sorts of crap that you and I have never had to deal with.
Actually , I have been discriminated against , and I WAS denied a job because of affirmative action , so I have had to deal with the "crap".
Regardless ...
Your post reads like a script from a gay victim movie of the week .(fictional)
Now , from a real world case...
I know of a couple of guys who are gay and are living in a union and who were awarded adopted kids . One guy is a school principal and the other is a vice-principal , if anything their gayness has proved a real asset in their careers , since they seem to have really shot up the ranks of the school system at a suspiciously fast rate. Atleast this is the theory of one of the gay guys brothers who is a school teacher himself.
I also think that elites maintain their power by "divide and conquer" tactics more than anything else.
I agree , and it's been a constant war of the minority against the majority , as is the topic of this thread.
We have much more cause to cooperate with each other and think for ourselves about the quality of life that we want for our grandchildren than any previous generation.
Cooperation is not telling the majority : "we're gay and we don't give a f*ck about you people or your out- ated laws and customs and your stupid morality , we want "gay marriage" .
I think civil unions would be a good compromise . (cooperation)
This should be cause for thought .... Ironically , I believe most gays don't even care about "gay marriage"
They tell _you_ that those bad Lefty elitists are trying to encroach on territory that used to be seen as yours. The tell the Lefties that you're all a bunch of bigots who deserve to lose even those privileges that you have rightly earned.
No , I would say they dupe lefties into supporting the enactment ever increasing legislation to control society (big government)
| |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 9:36:42 AM |
I agree , and it's been a constant war of the minority against the majority , as is the topic of this thread.
No, it's been a constant battle against bigotry vs. justice. When the majority has privileges that it unduly denies to members of minority groups, it is not the minority groups who are creating the conditions of strife. It is those members of the majority who continue to behave so disdainfully. Do you really believe that Jim Crow laws were consistent with the Constitution? What is a ban on "gay" marriage but another variation on that theme?
We have much more cause to cooperate with each other and think for ourselves about the quality of life that we want for our grandchildren than any previous generation.
Cooperation is not telling the majority : "we're gay and we don't give a f*ck about you people or your out- ated laws and customs and your stupid morality , we want "gay marriage"
Nor is it telling someone, "you're gay and we don't give a f*ck about you. You won't get any jutice here." It's not that the laws are outdated, it's that they're unjust. Why should they care about a so-called morality that is based on prejudice? Who sowed the seeds of that prejudice, and who profits from its continuance?
Don't you think those people would prefer to be going about their legitimate business unmolested like anybody else? But since they can't do that--can't marry whom they love, can't reveal a significant aspect of their identities for fear of getting shunned, fired, or beaten--can you honestly expect them not to get angry? If you were in their shoes, how would _you_ feel? What would _you_ do?
You might be tempted to blame them and their stupid laws, and to hold a grudge. In fact, that is exactly what you did when you got passed over because of AA. Well, if that sucks for you then imagine how it would feel to find that happening to you at _every_company_you_apply_to!
That's what it's been like for them--the rule, not the exception that it was for you. So, how can you judge them as "uncooperative" when you yourself behave exactly the same way in similar circumstances?
It isn't cooperations to say, "if you don't like the way things are that's your tough luck. Go away." But it seems that this is all you're saying.
Is that what you really mean? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 2:00:37 PM | "Your idea sounds like an attempt to mark out the heterosexual unions as being of greater value than the homosexual ones."
At one time in this thread, with no religious over tone I would have said that is true for hetro-sexuals bring forth tomarrows children as far as a "couple" goes.
But I did restate in a latter post that with the growing popularity of artifical insemination of eggs, sperm and an embryo, children being born to a hetrosexual couple no longer are a class to themselves. A child now can be reared through modern techniques as a baby from the womb for two females or a women birthing a child for two males.
I wasn't making an attempt to make one union more important then the next. Lets face a fact, when you lump things together that have differences under one title, there are always problems to deal with in the future. Seperate those differences from the get go so all feel things are being equated equally and the problems shall be fewer that will eventually come to pass. Where is there discrimination in a marriage certificate pronouncing what is reality? Like.....This marriage certificate is for a hetrosexual couple of.....This marriage certificate is for the gay couple of.....This marriage certificate is for the lesbian couple of......We are a society of research and statistics. The specifyed differences of each certificate can be a help mate for various vital and marriage information of and about the different types of couples that do exist.
By the way, my dad is on his 5th marriage. A marriage certificate is a marriage certificate no matter how oft it is used or by whom. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 2:36:27 PM | Not wishing to cast any aspersions on your Dad but I think the once only married candidates of whatever sexuality should at least be due to some kind of quality distinction or long service award. Maybe it could be stamped on their license after a suitable elapse of time. I'm not sure why a marriage certificate must explain what sexual orientation of person is being united.
I thought Apartheid had been abolished.. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 4:36:59 PM | Clarence said....
"I'm not sure why a marriage certificate must explain what sexual orientation of person is being united.
I thought Apartheid had been abolished.."
If you have ever had a job doing research, you would understand why I have made the statement for a distinction. For example. Let us say California's citizens are an a-ok for homosexuals to be married under the same license as hetros. Now let us say for reasons of thinking patterns of people who believe in political correctness/non-discrimination problems, any hetro or same sex unions are all lumped together by county and then recorded at the capitol level. In those files there will be lumped together male to female, female to female and male to male for the purpose of non-discrimination. Now let us take a state with a smaller population like Alaska with less then a million and here, saying they approve of same sex marriages like california and no matter the county you are married in, a license distinguishes who and of what sex is getting hitched so in each county and onto the capitol all is wrapped up into three different catagories....hetro, gay and lesbian marriage unions. Now income some research companies that want to do research on how long the various unions exist, percentages of who divorces, seperations, widowers etc., of the three specific groups. Under that example, which state do you think will be able to supply better documented data? Which state will be prefered over when research companies need data for whatever reason as they do it now?
There is no discrimination in this process. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 6:28:36 PM |
There is no discrimination in this process
Sure, only one couple gets one thing, and the other couple gets a different thing. No discrimination there, no.
And can you spell hetero the correct way. I know harping on someone for their spelling is a low blow, but come on, you're whole basis for your argument is hetero vs. homo, and you can't spell your subject of debate the right way. Makes your argument look gradeschoolish. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 6:38:14 PM |  Yeah yeah yeah, so I suck at my spelling at times....heterosexual.....hetero......better??? 
Point being is based on all marriages being equated equality for all legal purposes but the certificate being written to distinguish who and what form of union is taking place and where. We as humans catagorize everything when it comes to records. I can remember prior to pc's when near anything of a specific topic just got lumped all together in a box or wooden or metal filing cabinet according to the alphabet (sometimes) and if you had to do research or find something, you would have to spend hours sorting through everthing to find the something you were searching for. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 7:33:18 PM | Montanan,
While I agree, for research purposes, this may be a great thing, there are a few inherent problems that I at least would have with requiring different certificates under the scenario you describe.
First of all, I don't know if you can legally require someone to put there sex on a application or legal document. I think that may fly in the face of other anti-discriminatory laws.
Second of all, and this has nothing to do with the discussion at all, but I have a problem requiring people to identify as a sex when there are, in my opinion, more than two sexes. To me, sex is almost on a spectrum. There are the following sexes:
Male
Female
Hermaphrodite
Fermaphrodite
Mermaphrodite
Transgender
Transsexual
Transvestitie
Your are now wanting to label people for the sake of labeling people, and that to me is wrong as well.
But those are just two issues I have.
My original solution has non of those issues. Everyone gets the same certificate, no matter what. There is no reason to label people, or further classify people.
To me, once we start labeling people, discrimination has started right there. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/10/2008 9:54:44 PM | Well Ezzee, first your fermaphrodite is another spelling for a hermaphrodite. Your
mermaphrodite is not even equated a human species yet. Now lets deal with birth certificates. People get labled at birth for whether they are male or female and in some cases I would guess a hermaphrodite. Almost any information sheet you fill out now requiring personal information wants to know if your male, female, transgendered, married, single, seperated, divorced, widowed, etc. On marriage certificates for heteros under the two names it has bridegroom or groom for the male and bride for the female. No one has found offense in these titles that are male or female. Even in our day and time political correctness has not changed it. So to say states would be 'labeling'/discriminating people by making a distinction of what kind of a couple is getting married, I don't believe would be an issue. Are you trying to argue that people would be embarassed to have on a marriage certificate somewhere stating this certificate is for a gay or lesbian or hetero marriage? If people in your opinion would be embarassed to get labled what they are by political correctness in definition, let 'em be afforded a different marriage license that would not cause them embarassement. All it would have is the normal information and places for their names.
Lets understand one thing about goverments today. Whenever you fill out any medical, job application, etc., they want to know EVERYTHING about you that the law allows them the right to find out about. If you think that same goverment is going to make a marriage certificate with an announcement of names, dates and places only, you have another thing to consider.....it would not be done. Present forms we fill out everyday prove it. | |
|
|
| Page 11 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
