+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The Pit (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Gay Marriage (/showthread.php?tid=8556)
- Splatterpunk - 02-20-2004
Fucking madhouse.
- The Jays - 02-20-2004
What the hell? I go to take a dump, and I come back to find that Alkey gives me permission to blow him?
I was simply inquiring about the presumption you had regarding the direction that I was trying to move this thread in. No malice.
- IrishAlkey - 02-20-2004
Blame it on the furry-assed, shit-lipped monkey.
- The Jays - 02-20-2004
I'm not going to blow you, either way.
- IrishAlkey - 02-20-2004
I'm convinced.
- Galt - 02-20-2004
It's so sweet how when Arpi doesn't know the answer to something he just acts like whatever the subject at hand, it is so simple that only a fool wouldn't know the answer; doesn't give any information, help, anything. Just talks down his nose hoping that people will assume it's because he's so smart and they're stupid.
- The Jays - 02-20-2004
Ok.
A man and a woman become a union under the eyes of the law. A man and a man become a union under the eyes of the law. A woman and a woman become a union under the eyes of the law.
All three of those are the same thing if all three of those things are considered marriages.
The arguement, then, is that there should not be two terms to describe a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage, because that is discriminatory.
- Galt - 02-20-2004
I doubt it would be an issue if it were merely a matter of semantics, YOU FUCKING CLOD!
I'm pretty sure that "marriage" and "civil union" do have different legal rights. I can't imagine that civil union has many rights specifically regarding retirement tax stuff, and death benefits, dummy.
But I'm not really sure since I also have never been married, and also never was a complete failure as a husband, thus ruining my marriage due an uncontrollable drug problem or anything similar causing a divorce and being well versed in legal rights of marriage.
- The Jays - 02-20-2004
Ok.
Hypothetical here.
Say Marriage and Civil Unions carry the same rights. Same benefits, same everything.
Then the only matter would be the fact that one defines a heterosexual union, the other a homosexual union.
- Arpikarhu - 02-20-2004
Galt Wrote:It's so sweet how when Arpi doesn't know the answer to something he just acts like whatever the subject at hand, it is so simple that only a fool wouldn't know the answer; doesn't give any information, help, anything. Just talks down his nose hoping that people will assume it's because he's so smart and they're stupid.:5:
- drusilla - 02-20-2004
GonzoStyle Wrote:don't forget about the run-in you had with spidermanSilera Wrote:He's an architect. Walls do talk to him.or depends on how drunk you are, years back I had a 3 hour conversation with my life size standee of Humphrey Bogart and he talked back to me.
- Arpikarhu - 02-20-2004
my matsui bobblehead once tried to get me to kill my parents. good thing they live so far away.
- Bland - 02-20-2004
The Jays Wrote:Ok.that is correct. there would be no difference other than what would happen on the honeymoon.
Hypothetical here.
Say Marriage and Civil Unions carry the same rights. Same benefits, same everything.
Then the only matter would be the fact that one defines a heterosexual union, the other a homosexual union.
- drusilla - 02-20-2004
Arpikarhu Wrote:my matsui bobblehead once tried to get me to kill my parents. good thing they live so far away.my jorge bobble head comes to life & makes me do things too!
Edited By drusilla on 1077256033
- The Jays - 02-20-2004
Bland Wrote:Ok. Here's the opinion.The Jays Wrote:Ok.that is correct. there would be no difference other than what would happen on the honeymoon.
Hypothetical here.
Say Marriage and Civil Unions carry the same rights. Same benefits, same everything.
Then the only matter would be the fact that one defines a heterosexual union, the other a homosexual union.
I have no problem with civil unions having the same benefits as a marriage.
I have no problem with civil unions being recognized in the state of New York.
It would seem that calling a union between two people of opposite genders the same thing as a union between two people of the same gender is problematic, because by doing that, it seems that there, inherently, a problem with being homosexual, rather than heterosexual, which is not true. There is no problem whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual. There is no problem with being different. So why is there a problem with calling one a marriage and one a civil union, if both of them are A-OK, and both of them carry the same benefits?
- GonzoStyle - 02-20-2004
The point is pointless on whether it is discrimination or not, though it plainly is.
Like I said two pages ago, all a civil union is, is simple a version of the 1950's "seperate water fountains". While both provide almost similar things, they wanna keep it seperate from eachother.
They don't want fags and hetero people to be considered equals.
The most specific biased is the one I mentioned where they can't have an actual ceremony in a place of worship like "normal" people and that as of today their union is only recognized in vermont.
The benefits and such things are basically the same thing as a marriage but the moral majority doesn't wanna see gay marriage on and equal level with straight man and woman marriage.
It really is that simple, it's common day segregation.
The gays just don't have their own version of Dr. King... or in their case Dr. Queen.
- The Jays - 02-20-2004
GonzoStyle Wrote:The point is pointless on whether it is discrimination or not, though it plainly is.It is not the "seperate water fountains" thing. It's not a physical seperation between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Like I said two pages ago, all a civil union is, is simple a version of the 1950's "seperate water fountains". While both provide almost similar things, they wanna keep it seperate from eachother.
They don't want fags and hetero people to be considered equals.
The most specific biased is the one I mentioned where they can't have an actual ceremony in a place of worship like "normal" people and that as of today their union is only recognized in vermont.
The benefits and such things are basically the same thing as a marriage but the moral majority doesn't wanna see gay marriage on and equal level with straight man and woman marriage.
It really is that simple, it's common day segregation.
The gays just don't have their own version of Dr. King... or in their case Dr. Queen.
It is different but equal. There IS a difference between heterosexual and homosexual, and there is nothing wrong with that difference, and a united gay couple should be equal with a united straight couple, equal rights, equal privileges, equal benefits.
Now, see how I stated the difference between the two couples by adding an adjective in front of each word. If i take them away, "a united couple should be equal with a united couple."
A black man should be equal with a white man. "A man should be equal with a man."
There is no problem pointing out the difference between the two, as long as that difference is fact.
By calling the unions of heterosexuals and homosexuals the same thing, it does not make the two the same thing. One couple is still heterosexual, while the other is still homosexual. They are both different, but they both receive the same rights.
Calling one a marriage defines it as being a union between a man and a woman.
Quote:The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.Calling one a civil union is calling it a union between, simply, two people. You don't receive any more rights from getting married as you would from getting a civil union (if, hypothetically, civil unions received the same rights and privelges as a marriage).
If we call them both marriage, then we will still use the adjectives of heterosexual and homosexual to point out the difference. There's no value gained from changing the definition, and no value gained from leaving it the way it is. The only reason to leave marriage as being defined by a man and a woman is because it is the definition we have agreed upon for the last couple thousand years.
The one state in which civil unions are recognized, Vermont, used to have a governor, who recently dropped his bid for president. Here is an article regarding Howard Dean's position on civil unions, at least when he was governor.
Quote:December 23, 1999
Governor defends 'different but equal'
By Diane Derby Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER -- Amid growing criticism that a domestic partnership law would create a "separate but equal" status for same-sex couples who want to marry, Gov. Howard B. Dean disagreed with critics and defended his legislative approach Wednesday.
Dean said the "separate but equal" claim, with its inherent reference to the black civil rights movement, suggests that gay and lesbian couples would somehow be segregated or offered a different standard of benefits.
"That is not the case," Dean said, adding that in order to meet the court mandate, the domestic partnership bill would have to extend the same package of benefits to same-sex couples as are offered to married partners.
"I think it's not 'separate but equal.' It's 'different but equal,'" Dean told reporters, illustrating how important the semantics of the case have become. "There are many, many instances (in) statutes everywhere, including in Vermont, where things are different for different groups of people as a way to protect their civil rights."
"This is a civil rights issue as far as I'm concerned. I think many Vermonters see it as a civil rights issue," he said, adding that he saw no contradiction in the "different but equal" approach.
"People are different," he said. "Sometimes you have to do different things to guarantee people's civil rights in a different way, and I don't have a problem with that."
Dean and legislative leaders are looking to craft a "domestic partnership" bill in the coming session that would extend all of the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The move comes in response to a Vermont Supreme Court decision issued Monday that said the state was constitutionally required to do so.
"Whether this takes the form of inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' system or some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with the Legislature," the court said.
It appears there is little political will to pass a law approving gay marriage, but lawmakers are already working on the domestic partnership approach, which many view as a more moderate and more publicly acceptable approach.
While gay rights' advocates hailed the court's decision on Monday, many have since made it clear that their ultimate goal is to win recognition for gay marriage. Some are already vowing to challenge a domestic partnership approach.
"I'm having a really hard time letting go of not getting an entire 'yes,'" said Barbara Dozetos, editor of "Out in the Mountains," a monthly newspaper that covers the gay and lesbian community. "There's a lot of good about it (the court's decision), but my bottom line is 'separate but equal' is not 'equal.'"
"It's time for us to put on our armor, because it's going to be a fight," she said earlier this week, echoing a sentiment that appears to be growing since the decision was issued.
Dean would not answer the question of whether or not he would veto a gay marriage bill if one came to his desk.
"It's not going to come to my desk. It's a 'what-if' question and I think the chances of a gay marriage bill passing the Legislature are very close to zero, so there's no need to get into that," said Dean, who has repeatedly declined to spell out his thoughts on gay marriage.
"I think it (a gay marriage bill) is inadvisable for a variety of reasons, which I'm not going to go into," he said.
Asked why he wouldn't elaborate, he added, "Because it's my personal business and I don't feel like I need to share it with anybody."
It is not segregation. Segregation implies a physical seperation between two things, and that is not what happens when you call one a marriage and the other a civil union. It is discrimination, and discrimination itself is not a bad thing. Discrimination is knowing the difference between things and being able to use that knowledge.
Quote:The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Prejudice is an incomplete form of discrimination; one judges the merits of one over the other without knowledge of all the facts.
Quote:I form my opinion of tomatoes as poisonous because they are red (scary) and belong to the same family as deadly nightshade therefore i will not eat tomatoes because i know they will kill me
There is no prejudice here. A marraige and a civil union are the same except for one fine distinction. A marriage occurs between a man and woman. A civil union occurs between two people. Other than that, the two are equal.
Now, it doesnt matter what the moral majority wants, because the two WILL be equal except for the fact than one will always define a union between a man and a woman, and the other will always define a union between two people.
If, as a society, we have decided that there is no problem with the fact that there are homosexuals and heterosexuals, then why should there be a problem if we define marriage as being the union of a man and woman, and civil union as the union between simply two people, if both provide the same benefits? We would simply be stating the distinction. And there is no problem with stating distinctions.
A short time ago in our country, a black man did not have the same rights as a white man. Now, what the country could have done is said "That black man is now a white man, and all black people should be recoginzed as white people from now on." That would give the black man all the rights of white people, but it doesnt change the fact that he has dark skin, and white people have light skin. And there's nothing wrong with that difference. Instead, we just recognized that a black man and a white man are equal, in terms of rights, benefits, priveleges, etc. The only difference is the color of their skin.
Now, in terms of the civil union in church thing, that is not something that the state can interfer with. It is the church's own decision on whether or not to allow for a civil union to take place. I think, though am unsure whether or not, that there are Christian denominations that allow for civil unions in their churchs. I do know that Catholics do not allow that, because they believe homosexuality is sinful. That's not the state's problem. Nothing is stopping them from starting their own religion, building their own church, and having a ceremony in there.
- GonzoStyle - 02-20-2004
Your point is exactly my point with different wording.
You say black and white should be equal in everything but the difference between skin color is noted, I agree.
But the gays are different how? in the fact they marry same sex, is that any different than interracial marriage then by your standards? It's marriage but by people of different color which also was illegal back when we had seperate water fountains.
My point was that this today is a throwback to the civil rights movement of the 60's for rights for blacks to vote, have equal opportunity in the workplace and in life. Gays want to be recognized now in their unions, so my point of the seperate water fountains metaphor lies in this simple fact.
Do people still today seperate black and white? yes.
is it right? no.
Same as they seperate man and woman, black and white, immigrants and natives, etc etc.
But in the end they still have their rights as defined by laws and our constitution, the fags don't.
- The Jays - 02-20-2004
GonzoStyle Wrote:Your point is exactly my point with different wording.When you say seperate between white and black, that's not to say that people make a distinction between white and black. Of course they do, it's like distinguishing between big noses and small noses.
You say black and white should be equal in everything but the difference between skin color is noted, I agree.
But the gays are different how? in the fact they marry same sex, is that any different than interracial marriage then by your standards? It's marriage but by people of different color which also was illegal back when we had seperate water fountains.
My point was that this today is a throwback to the civil rights movement of the 60's for rights for blacks to vote, have equal opportunity in the workplace and in life. Gays want to be recognized now in their unions, so my point of the seperate water fountains metaphor lies in this simple fact.
Do people still today seperate black and white? yes.
is it right? no.
Same as they seperate man and woman, black and white, immigrants and natives, etc etc.
But in the end they still have their rights as defined by laws and our constitution, the fags don't.
There are people have prejudicial values, and keep away from blacks, or keep away from whites, because they are prejudice. That is bad.
Homosexuals are only different in that they are not heterosexuals. That's all. But marriage has always been defined as man and woman, as being heterosexual. So, a civil union is actually even more inclusive than marriage. IT means the union of any two people.
The discrimination against gays, that would be the only reason why people don't want civil unions in their state. Civil unions need to be afforded the same rights as a marriage, but there is no need to merge the terms if we have already insured that both unions will recieve the same rights.
It is a struggle to be gay in America. It is struggle to be anything in America. But we know what is right and wrong, all of us in this thread. All men are created equal.
I'm not following you when say that the fags don't have the same right as everyone else in the Constitution. If you mean in terms of civil unions, then yes, that is true. All civil unions should receive the same rights and privileges. If that's the only thing, then we have agreed on every point, and I've basicaly been forced to quote Howard Dean for shits and giggles.
And, just for the hell of it, here's two important amendments.
Quote:Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
- GonzoStyle - 02-20-2004
Quote:I'm not following you when say that the fags don't have the same right as everyone else in the Constitution. If you mean in terms of civil unions, then yes, that is true. All civil unions should receive the same rights and privileges. If that's the only thing, then we have agreed on every point, and I've basicaly been forced to quote Howard Dean for shits and giggles.
Thats exactly my point, having marriage and then civil union for gays is ridiculous. It's the same thing as having an ammendmant in the constitution defining blacks as chattle or the fountains example. It's keeping them seperate because they are viewed as inferior. Marriage by law is stated as between a man and a woman but as I said the law also defined blacks as property at one point. It's the same thing in my eyes, marriage is strictly a bond between two people who love eachother and thats what it should be. But theres too many people who wanna keep it segregated, like they didnt wanna send their kids to schools with blacks, or let women vote. It's americans once again seperating a class of people because they view them as inferior to what they percieve as "proper" and "pure".