BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:29 AM

Will you tell them ...or shall I?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:26 AM

Nobody in his right mind would walk up to a group of "lads" in any city, town, or hamlet and say "Ten percent of you are homosexual," unless he had a death wish*. And in any group of ten lads, there may be nobody there who is gay. But in the next group of ten—who knows? The fact (omigod!! There's that word again!!) is that in any sufficiently large gathering of people, somewhere around ten percent (give or take a percentage point) will be homosexual. This is true in Paris, London, Athens, Seattle, Los Angeles, Beijing, Capetown, Alice Springs. . . .

. . . and, yeah verily, in Glasgow.

Don Firth

*I tend to believe that the reaction one would probably get in this theoretical confrontation stems from the rather tenuous grasp a lot of very macho-seeming men actually have on their masculinity. And that's not theoretical. It's sound psychology.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:05 AM

Ake speweth:

"certainly wont rise to Greg's bait...."

Won't, or can't? Your only virtue as a bigot, Ake, is that
you don't attempt to appeal to the Deity in order to support
your bigotry. Nor, it seems, even to logic. You are, rather, a
humanist bigot, attempting to support your bigotry by claiming
that the 'majority' are bigots like yourself.

"a man so committed to "gay rights" that he felt obliged to decare himself a "hetrosexual" gay rights activist....need I say more?"

I simply am attempting to forestall your picturing me in a lavender
boa, Ake.

However, I'd also assert that I'm with the (your sacred word)
'majority' of those who are in favor of equal rights for gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and trans-gendered people, who are themselves 'none of the
above.'

Contrary to the image of the drag queen prancing down the street
in the Gay Pride parade.

"But things like "homosexual animals" and "10% of the human race is
homosexual".......do you think my heid buttons up the back?"

Perhaps not, but I begin to suspect that you might be wearing
knickers 'neath your kilt.

"you can compare books...and things"

Queer-baiting are we now? How trite. I smell a rat.

"However, I think if Don were to appear on the streets of Glasgow and
tell the lads that one in ten of them were homosexual, he might have
to get his runnin' shoes on"

Usually there is something which underlies such violent reactions---
like the truth.

We know well that all too often the most virulent objections to
homosexuality are put forward by those who're later found either
sending signals 'neath the doors of the gents or chasing after
young legislative assistants of the same gender.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 11:20 PM

Giok, you say: "If there is such a thing as Homosexual rights, then there must be heterosexual rights, and religious rights, or even the right to disapprove of motherhood and apple pie."

But don't you see, don't you agree, that there are many, many rights that heterosexuals and religios take as a matter of course? All that homosexuals are demanding is the same rights.

I suppose it's inevitable that applehood and mother pie are disapproved of somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:38 PM

Now wait just a moment, John...

"By what right do people ride rough shod over other people's sincerely held beliefs screaming ME ME ME!" (?).

Are you speaking of the gay rights movement riding roughshod over the beliefs of religious and/or homophobics?

So let's analyze this: Gay people are expected to accept less than full civil equality because their body chemistry/biological makeup causes them to love in a way that runs contrary to others' "deeply held religious beliefs"? I have to respectfully point out again that religion, however deeply held, is not dictated by physiognomy but by tradition, history, and familial indoctrination. A person's religious beliefs may govern their OWN actions and the way they live their lives, but at least in the US (I can't speak for Scotland) the idea is that each citizen is accorded rights regardless of their belief or lack thereof.

So (and I feel like I'm stating this question for the umpteenth time), what gives those with deeply held beliefs the privilege of riding roughshod over the civil rights of gay people? And yet again, whether one believes in God, Allah, Buddha, the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, or no higher power at all, how can the marriage of two people who love each other--gay, straight, bi, whatever--possibly weaken or affect his/her own? Good Lord, pretty soon I'm going to be turning to Bill Clinton for a straight answer to that question, because nobody else will give me one. *rolling eyes*

The whole "Gay marriage tramples on the beliefs of the religious" argument makes me furious, I'll admit, because the assumption is that the equality (not to mention happiness and well-being) of gay people is somehow subordinate to the faithful's/homophobic's right to treat them like second-class citizens. Golden Rule, my ass.

Molly

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:53 PM

Well that snailed him jock....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:00 AM

Er, Right.
Well, if you'll excuse me, things to see, people to do.
Byeee.
Slam.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:41 AM

Homophobia isn't against the law, nor is a deeply held religious belief.
By what right do people ride rough shod over other people's sincerely held beliefs screaming ME ME ME!
As with all single issue politics, it's all motivated by selfish self interest.
If there is such a thing as Homosexual rights, then there must be heterosexual rights, and religious rights, or even the right to disapprove of motherhood and apple pie.
So think of other people having rights before you claim precedence for your point of view to the exclusion of all others.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:14 AM

Very little except that they seem to be happy to take the homophobic Mr Souter's cash.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:53 AM

Gosh, you do know absolutely nothing about the SNP don't you my little gastropod?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:36 AM

akenaton

Mr Souter is of course an evangelical Christian and this is what forms his opinions...Not Scottish Nationalism.

I was more concerned with how Mr Souter formed the opinions of the SNP than the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:00 AM

But you see, no one has given me a satisfactory explanation of how "the homosexual lifestyle affects the rights of others". Plain and simple...it doesn't. No one else's rights are being infringed.

And I assure you I have been reading the posts. ;)

Round and round we go...

Cheers, M

P.S. "However, I think if Don were to appear on the streets of Glasgow and tell the lads that one in ten of them were homosexual, he might have to get his runnin' shoes on..." OK, I admit it, that did give me a giggle. You could have a point there. Of course, I think it would depend on which streets...;)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 03:35 AM

Molly...For a start they're not "facts" at all they are statistics and everyone knows what they say about statistics.

As I tried to point out above, societies do evolve...but not always for the better.

The comparison of the homosexual issue with womens sufferage or civil rights for black "people" is spurious in the extreme.
No one in their right mind wants to deprive homosexuals of the right to vote or go about their personal lives.
Homosexuality is there and as I stated right at the start of this thread, persecution or bullying are completely unacceptable.

For the purposes of this discussion, it's about how the homosexual lifestyle affects the rights of others.

You may say "its none of their business". If you do you have not been reading the posts.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 03:17 AM

Hi Snail...Sorry mate I'm afraid you're wrong again.

That drawer of your's must be gettin' pretty full of second prizes!

Mr Souter is of course an evangelical Christian and this is what forms his opinions...Not Scottish Nationalism.

As an atheist I don't share Mr Souter's religious beliefs.

However, I think if Don were to appear on the streets of Glasgow and tell the lads that one in ten of them were homosexual, he might have to get his runnin' shoes on....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 10:20 PM

Ake, it strikes me that for someone who doesn't trust/like "such facts", you don't bother to back up your claim that "a huge majority" of the world's population is virulently against homosexuality. I haven't seen you cite any statistics at all, and yet you're trying to use the power of nebulous and unverified numbers as a respectable argument.

The Kinsey studies, on the other hand, are well-documented and well-researched, and have been verified by independent sources (as Don pointed out).

And of course, statistics aside, it's also true that societies evolve and change over time. I mean, a few hundred years ago the thought of black people or women voting (gasp! the horror!) was a much more universally contested issue than gay marriage is today. And yet, the thought of denying women or black people the vote today is unthinkable to most of us (with apologies to any Miami-Dade voting officials who may read this, of course *wickedgrin*). The point is, giving the vote to women and black people didn't automatically cause universal acceptance; as I pointed out earlier, that's hardly the goal. People deserve the same rights, whether Joe Sixpack (not to mention Pat Robertson) approves or disapproves.

I don't for a single moment believe any of this will change your mind, of course. We can put forth a reasoned argument, and you can dismiss the "facts" and then turn around and accuse the lot of us of irrationality until we are both blue in the face. But as they say, it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness, eh?

Cheers,

Molly

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:01 PM

akenaton

I'm a Scottish Nationalist

Hmmmm, I wonder if this could have any bearing on the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 08:53 PM

I expect those nations with similar cultural tensions -- France, England, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Greenland, maybe Portugal, Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia/Serbo-Croatia, and Turkey, for example, would prove to have similar per centages, with minor variance. Your implication that the U.S. might have a strongly skewed figure one way or the other, compared to other regions, is interesting, implying that it is cultural permission that drives the statistic. I don't buy it. I do think that in highly repressive societies (such as the one some folks would like us to live in) you would find out about a lot fewer instances. But that's neither here nor there, as the actress told the bishop.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 07:53 PM

Same sex sexual relationships among a number of animal species is well documented. And not just American animals, Ake. :) You might want to check it out before your saw cuts through the limb.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 07:06 PM

But it is true enough that any assumption that statistics gathered from one part of the world apply universally is open to question. Imagine doing that on physical attributes like height or weight or skin colour.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:12 PM

Cheap shot, Ake! Do a little research before you try to relegate people to the back of the class. Check for yourself. Or are you afraid of what you'll find if you do?

I'll let other people judge whether what I have posted is factual or not. The cited facts are out there for anyone to look at, including you.

Duty calls, so I'm outta here for now, but I'll be back later.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:11 PM

Never read Kinsey, but I take it his research was done exclusively in America?
If so that research would suggest that there is a possibility that 10% of the people he spoke to could be homosexual.

It is a huge leap, to extrapolate from that, that 10% of the world's population is homosexual......facts my arse!!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:08 PM

Thanks, Kevin...

I see they are trying....

"Civil partners will have equal treatment in a wide range of legal matters with married couples, including:

Tax, including inheritance tax;

Employment benefits;

Most state and occupational pension benefits;

Income related benefits, tax credits and child support;

Duty to provide reasonable maintenance for your civil partner and any children of the family;

Ability to apply for parental responsibility for your civil partner's child;

Inheritance of a tenancy agreement;

Recognition under intestacy rules;

Access to fatal accidents compensation;

Protection from domestic violence; and

Recognition for immigration and nationality purposes"

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:03 PM

Don as you probably know .....I distrust such "facts"


Don't try to beat me up with them....In fact just go to the back of the class with Teribus...you can compare books...and things...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:49 PM

Ake, Alfred Kinsey's 1950s statistical study of the sexual behavior of the human male and human female turned up information that many people found upsetting. For example, that at some time during their marriage, approximately 50% of married people, both male and female, had engaged at least once in extramarital sexual relations. AND—it turned up that somewhere between 8% and 14% engaged regularly in homosexual relations, about 10% exclusively.

Many people attacked Kinsey, not because they could find fault with his research and his figures, but because they didn't want to hear it! His figures were later corroborated by other researchers, including Masters and Johnson.

As far as homosexual behavior in animals is concerned, look up the behavior of bonobo chimpanzees in particular. Similar behavior has also been witnessed among some birds and a number of mammal species. Not all members of any given species participate, but an observed percentage do.

CHECK YOUR FACTS.

I find the eating habits of some members of my species a bit disgusting—not to mention the political behavior of lots of people—but I would certainly not deny them their civil rights because of it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:39 PM

This link has rather more about that stuff, Bill D. (From the government Women and Equality Unit.)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:21 PM

Don I'm not being dismissive, so please don't be offended.

I've been out roughcasting since 7 this morning and its now10:30.
I just can't be bothered getting bogged down in that sort of discussion.

But things like "homosexual animals" and "10% of the human race is homosexual".......do you think my heid buttons up the back?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:16 PM

I read thru 'most' of that UK 'civil partnership' explanation. It tells where to go, what you must do, who can present,...all sorts of things...but I can't find diddly-squat about exactly what RIGHTS the civil partners have - or don't have.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:02 PM

"Don you continue to churn out the unreasoning cliches...this forum should be a meeting of minds...try to be objective for once."

I am being objective, Ake. I'm presenting established facts. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean I'm not being objective. And "unreasoning cliches?" I don't think so. A substantial amount of reasoning went into what I've posted, and facts are not "clichés," even if you don't like them.

Are you able to point out, specifically, where I'm not being objective? And just which of the things I've posted are "unreasoning clichés?" I'm just curious.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:35 PM

"Partner" - now that really is an ambiguous term. Even "Sleeping Partner".

I think "spouse" is a word that deserves to be brought back into use. And it's got the advantage that it could be used by gay couple in "civil partnerships" just as well just as well as people in (mixed) marriages. And there'd be no need for any legal shenanigans in using it, and no legal ground for anyone to challenge it so far as I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:29 PM

OSLPs used to be listed on the population census as POSSLQ (persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters). Thus the venerable love song,

Rose are red,
Violets are blue.
Won't you be
My POSSLQ?

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:21 PM

Grab and Don....I think you know very well the point I was making to Bee.
But you can't let Bee answer in your haste to jump in and twist the argument.   I don't expect I'll say much more on this thread, certainly wont rise to Greg's bait....a man so committed to "gay rights" that he felt obliged to declare himself a "hetrosexual" gay rights activist....need I say more?

Don you continue to churn out the unreasoning cliches...this forum should be a meeting of minds...try to be objective for once.

And Bee i'm not an American...I'm a Scottish Nationalist, and Jock's wan as well....in fact we're a right pair o' Nationalists. I think we should get merried :0)........Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:05 PM

Here's the UK government site on what are called Civil Partnerships here.

There does appear to be a bit of variance on what this kind of thing implies in different legal systems, which is a bit confusing. Of the course the same thing applies to "marriages". A (heterosexual) marriage that is perfectly legal in one country may not be recognised as such in another.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:04 PM

The idea that the "liberal West" is more "permissive" than the rest of the world when it comes to drug use, pornography, and all that just doesn't wash. When it comes to child prostitution and pornography, take a good look at Thailand, where child prostitution is a tourist attraction. Drug use is rampant in many parts of the world—sometimes as part of religious ceremonies. And as far as obscenity is concerned, I don't think there are few things much more obscene that publicly beheading someone because they were caught in—or suspected of—a bit of sexual hanky-panky. But some of this country's allies and trade partners practice this sort of thing.

No, when it comes to "sleaze" and "permissiveness," to say that this is the province on the Western countries (Europe and North America) is sheer nonsense.

And when you consider that roughly ten percent of the human population is homosexual (Alfred Kinsey's figures, corroborated by Masters and Johnson)—and that this is not a matter of choice, as some erroneously believe—discriminating against same-sex couples is no different from denying someone's civil rights simply because that person is left-handed.

To say that homosexuality is "unnatural" is also erroneous. It has been observed in a number of animal species.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 03:40 PM

I just love the way huge leaps of association are made in order to push some people's personal agenda.
No this is not aimed at anybody in particular, mainly because quite a few people do it!
giok

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM

So you put same-sex marriage in the same bucket as "massive drug use and
addiction, pornography in all its sleazy forms, exploitation of children
for money?"

Personally, I'd put it in the same category of "freedom of religion,"
"freedom of speech," "freedom of association," "separation of church
and state."

While we're loathing the West so much--- do you really believe that
drug addiction is a Western phenomenon? And who is to say that
"pornography in all its sleazy forms" isn't an expression of free
speech and thought? (Well, at least in SOME of its sleazy forms.)
That it isn't, in fact, an indication that at least some of society
has put aside prudishness? And, as far as I can tell, "exploitation
of children for money" seems to be most dominant in the Third World,
where they labor in sweat shops to produce cheap goods for the West,
while enjoying none of the fruits of their labors.

The difference, to me, is not whether "most...condemn
homosexuality by a huge majority" but rather whether that "huge
majority" recognizes the limits of its power to act upon that
moral judgment, or to impose it upon a minority. The Islamist,
for example, feels perfectly free to impose 'Islamic law' as
the law under which all in his particular geographic area will
live. So, unfortunately, does the Fundamentalist Christian in
many cases. Both have a problem with the line between where
their own lives end, and where the lives of others begin.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 03:07 PM

Bee ...I suppose its like any other survey and depends on how the questions are loaded. The "liberal" climate in many Western countries (political correctness) would have a big bearing on any survey.

However if you broaden things out a bit.....the world contains many different religions and cultures and most would condemn homosexuality by a huge majority.

I know we in the West think we are so "liberal" and so right, but massive drug use and addiction, pornography in all its sleazy forms, exploitation of children for money, are just afew of the things which give the lie to that idea....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 02:33 PM

There are (at least) 3 different situations being described here.

1)A classic church marriage, with 'marriage license' procured from a civil office, but ceremony performed by clergy.

2)A marriage with the same license, but ceremony done by a judge or other certified 'civil' official. No difference at all in the eyes of the laws & courts...all rights of inheritance and power of attorney in case of illness and freedom from having to testify against 'spouse'...etc....as well as all obligations of a 'spouse' about debts and property.

3) Various 'civil unions' recognizing shared property rights and 'sometimes' allowing power of attorney...etc...but NOT full 'spousal' rights needed for adoption of children, inheritance of property...etc....in other words, not full marriage rights as in #2.

because #3 has a number of variations, depending on the state, it is hard to say how many 3a, 3b, 3c...etc. there are.

Obviously, most same-sex couples, many of whom are totally monogamous and dedicated to each other, wish to have the same **rights** as in #2, and many wish to have it like #1, as they are church members.

There are those who wish to limit these rights because they assume that same sex couples should not be 'recognized by the church' or be free to raise children, or...or...or...celebrate Mother's Day...or whatever. The reasons they give for denying these rights almost always boil down to "I don't like it."

(and as far as raising children--I see many, many hetero couples who should not be allowed to raise kids!)

I personally know of two women who are raising a boy who was conceived thru artifical insemination and carried by one of his 'moms'...They are kind, intelligent, professional women and the boy is a happy, bright 3 year old. These are happy, productive people!....and you would not be welcome to butt in & tell them they in violation of God's Laws or doing anything evil or 'un-natural'.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 02:32 PM

I heard a new acronym today SSLP, same sex life partner.
I thought to myself is there then a case for an OSLP?
Then I stopped to wonder 'Life Partner', oh yes, we all think that when we get married. So what happens when a same sex marriage breaks up, do they go through the same rigmarole as heterosexual couples?
Do they fight for custody of the sex toys? [I know I did!]
Ponderingly yours
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 02:25 PM

Good question, frogprince.

Some years ago, I was a witness at the marriage of two friends. Neither she nor he were church-goers, and they opted to be married by a judge. Civil union. No religious ceremony. Yet—this was regarded by all as a full marriage, with all the customary rights and privileges prescribed by law, and it was also regarded as such by their employers in matters of health insurance.

Why, then, are same-sex couples united in a civil union—or a religious ceremony—denied these same rights and privileges?

When Barbara and I were married, we went through the usual procedure of getting a license (required by law), signed the marriage certificate before the ceremony, and were then married in a church by a minister. Not by a judge. Yet, we, too, have the same full rights and privileges of a married couple.

As far as church weddings of same-sex couples are concerned, although most conservative or fundamentalist Christian churches are strenuously opposed, not all Christian churches are. There is one church in my neighborhood that has married at least two same-sex couples that I know of, and perhaps more. And there are a couple of other fairly liberal churches nearby who are also signatories to the "Reconciled in Christ – Affirmation of Welcome" that I linked to in an above post.

The government should stay out of the matter and grant full civil rights to everyone. The Constitution does not permit this kind of interference in the private lives of citizens, and any attempt to amend the Constitution to include such interference would be inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution.

If a same-sex couple wants to have a church wedding, there are churches that will do it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 01:36 PM

I'm realizing that, as a U.S. Citizen, I seem to have missed some basic legal definitions. We know at least two young couples who have been married in civil ceremonies, which just means married by a judge instead of by clergy. How would a couple go about entering a legal "civil union"? Do you know of any hetero couples doing so? If so, why would they go with that status instead of marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:00 AM

Personally, I don't think the Feds have any business dictating with whom one may partner in marriage, and should make their civil benefits uniformly available to civil unions. Marriage as a sacrament, which is a different thing altogether, is purely the business of various churches and similar institutions and should have no part in government's concerns.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:36 AM

As Dick said, in the US, participation in a civil union (however that might be defined) does not bring with it full Federal government benefits. For example, the spouse (defined for the purpose of this as a member of a marriage, and Federal law defines "marriage" as an exclusively heterosexual relationship) of a Federal employee is covered by his or her health insurance, while a (civil union) partner is not. A spouse is entitled to a share of a living retiree's Social Security benefits, and to a survivor's benefit when the retiree is deceased, while a partner is not. I think (but I'm not certain) that a partner can receive a survivor's annuity under the Federal Civil Service retirement system, but it would be under what is called the "insurable interest" section of the law and would cost significantly more than a spousal annuity.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 08:26 AM

I would like to challenge Akenaton's assumption that homosexuals are "bent on coercing society into accepting a lifestyle which a large majority find abhorrent".

That does not appear to be true in either part - the 'coercing' or the 'majority finds abhorrent'. I've just done some searching and found this: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:X_OaHUbl-dMJ:www.legermarketing.com/documents/SPCLM/010716ENG.pdf+attitudes+toward+homosexu, among others.

The conclusions here are that, overall, about 75% of the total Canadian population thinks that homosexuals are just like anybody else and should have the same rights as anybody else, including rights to marriage and adoption. Younger and working people are more likely to believe this. Older non-working males are least likely to think this way, along with people whose mother tongue is neither French nor English.

This is Canada; I think Akenaton is an American? However, can the reality be that different in the US?

Ake, you say you yourself are not anti-homosexual, but the Canadian stats suggest you may be living or working in an area which is not representative of 'the majority' at all.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 08:22 AM

"On this thread, as I am not a Christian or a member of any other
religion I have tried to be objective in everything I have written."

This rather reminds me of the arguments that I once heard for keeping
black folks from renting one's house at the Jersey shore.

"Well, I have nothing against colored people per se, but the fact
is that if I rent to them it will bring down the property values."

A variation on that theme "Well I have nothing against colored people
per se, but if I rent to coloreds my neighbors will be very upset and
I try to be a good neighbor, to go along and get along."

In the above two cases the bigot tries to make the problem about
property values or about neighborliness--- just practical matters,
you know?

When the fact is, that it's really all about bigotry--- and you're
kidding yourself if you prefix your support of bigotry with the old
"I have nothing against..." or "Some of my best friends are..." If
you refuse to rent to people of color you DO have something against
them, and you are doing something against them. Likewise, if you
call that friendship, then you've got a funny definition.

The same is true of the form of bigotry which we call 'homophobia.'

You can't simultaneously deny homosexuals equal rights under the
law and claim that you're neither a homophobe nor a practicing
bigot. Regardless of what nice bits of 'double think' you might
try and wrap your denial in.

Denial of civil rights is an act of aggression, as much so as
is waiting outside a gay bar with a group of thugs, and blood in
one's eyes. Don't think so? Society does! That's why we regularly
bring gay-bashers (and lynch mobs, and cops who beat up black
men for the crime of 'driving while black') for a crime of
civil rights violations.

Civil rights is neither more nor less than equal protection under
the law--- whether that is the right to not be beaten for accidents
of one's birth or the right to have one's committed love relationships
recognized by society as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:22 AM

That's what I meant by "I suppose this might vary from country to country". I'd have thought it might be a better strategy to get rid of anomalies like that directly in those places where they apply.

My understanding is that in the UK marriages and civil unions are pretty much the same thing, so that the argument is pretty trivial. The controversy here seems to be about the fact that heterosexual couples who don't wish to go through a marriage ceremony cannot opt for the civil partnership one. (I have some difficulty in understanding why they should,given that they are effectively equivalent.)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:52 PM

dick - No, I didn't know any of that. I thought a civil-union was a marriage without the wedding cake, preacher, somebody giving the bride away, and all the hoopla.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 08:18 PM

Riginslinger-
If marriages and civil unions were pretty much the same thing, this argument would be pretty trivial. They're not, and it isn't.
Unfortunately a state-granted civil union doesn't convey several of the federally-granted and private industry-granted privileges that marriage does.

In New Jersey, interestingly enough, two homosexuals can establish a civil union--two heteros CAN'T, unless both are over 65 years of age. You figure.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 11:53 PM

I guess I thought marriages and civil unions were pretty much the same thing. If marriages are to be performed by a church, and the church objects to same sex marriage, wouldn't that be the business of the church?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:37 PM

I'm not clear what legal rights and privileges are excluded in civil unions and included in marriages. I suppose this might vary from country to country - but then that can apply in the case of marriages as well.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 03:20 AM

Thanks for that reasoned post Molly and I agree with quite a bit of it.
However, I notice even you, use the "none of our damn business" argument occasionally.

Well it's not only the religious who believe in the institution of marriage, in fact a huge majority all over the world hold this view and they may feel that the sexual orientation of those allowed into that institution is very much their business.

I repeat, none of the points I raise on this thread are necessarily my personal opinions....Ake