BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:12 PM

"You were obviously married in a time when homosexuality was still illegal, probably homosexual marriage was unthinkable to you and your wife. You accepted the concept of traditional marriage and feel secure in that."

No, Ake, you're totally wrong. First of all, prior to our marriage, we did know one same-sex couple. One of the men had been a school chum of Barbara's, and discovered his sexual orientation when he entered his teens. He and his partner had been living together in a home they owned for over thirty years when he passed away. Cancer of the spine. He was an authority on both British history and the American Civil War, and he earned his living as a writer and a tutor. His partner was a college professor. Theater arts. They were good friends of ours, and of many other people—including married couples. They were accepted as a "couple" in their neighborhood and in the community at large—and in their church (Episcopalian). The only thing that set them apart was that they were the same gender and they were not legally married (not allowed). Other than that, they were as solid citizens as you will ever find anywhere. They were accepted as "partners." Had the law allowed them to marry, they would have been accepted as a married couple.

Second, homosexuality may be illegal—or may have been illegal—in the British Isles thirty years ago, but here in the United States, it was not. Perhaps in a few small, rural areas in the South, but not in any state, or major city that I am aware of.

Third, we had heard a little bit about gays wanting to get married like heterosexual couples. We felt, and with a few--very few—exceptions, most of our friends and acquaintances figured, "Why not?" The main exception was a couple who lived in the same apartment building where we live, and they were very hard-charging fundamentalist Christians. And they were mystified that we, whom they perceived as a church-going couple, were not disturbed by the idea. [So I have some experience with the very same arguments you are presenting] To us, and to many other heterosexual married couples, it was (and is) not "unthinkable" at all.

And as far as "traditional marriage" is concerned, when we married, I was 46 and Barbara was 40, and we both had careers. We decided that we would not have children. And there are many other heterosexual couples who, for various reasons, make the same decision. So—if one of the primary purposes of "traditional marriage" is procreation, how do you square that?

And as far as the "security" of traditional marriage is concerned, we were fully aware that marriage is not always a smooth and clear road, and that about half the marriages in this country end in divorce. But we did it anyway.

No, Ake, your arguments just don't wash.

And although in recent posts, you seem to be trying to back away from the idea that you have any kind of personal involvement with the issue, that doesn't wash either. No one spends as much time and energy arguing an issue, as you have in this thread, without having some very strong personal feelings on the matter.

Why?

Perhaps a bit of self-examination might be in order.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:41 PM

Yea, verily, Little Hawk.

The preferences of any one group of people should not take any kind of legal precedence over the preferences of any other. That would be a very poor principle to set.

Sexual relations with another male does not appeal to me, and never has. Likewise, I've heard of steak and kidney pie as being a fairly staple British dish. I don't care to try it. I did try kidneys once, and I simply could not go them. It was not the idea, it was the smell and the flavor. And escargot. They may be absolutely delicious. People have told me that they are. But I find the idea of eating snails very off-putting. I don't eat uncooked meat partly because I'm not fond of the flavor and partly because of the possibility of E. coli contamination.

I play chess, but I don't play bridge. Someone tried to teach me once, but I found that it bores the crap out of me. I don't watch "reality" television shows, and I never got into "Seinfeld" or "Friends." I do watch "Live from Lincoln Center" a lot. And I watch "The Red Green Show," which appears on my local PBS station.

I like swimming and fencing, but I've never been enthusiastic about the usual run of sports, like football, basketball, baseball, and hockey.

However—I do not care to have my preferences and aversions take on the force of law. It would make for a very dull world.

And I fail to see why some other feel they have the right to legally enforce their preferences and aversions.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM

Little Hawk, you use "appealing" as if you were quoting someone. I get the feeling you think you are quoting me. Now, I may have used 'appealing' up the road - I'm not going to go check - but in my last post to Ake I did not. If you would like to quote me, I said to Ake, "... male/male union bothers you far more than the idea of female/female. And yet the emotions are the same."

And yes. I do believe that male/male union bothers him more because he himself is male. Which, to me, means that his stated objections to homosexual relationships have little or nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of those relationships, only to do with his own distaste.

Which reaction, I think, is fair. But I would further point out that few of us spend any time visualizing others' marital activities or indeed have any inclination to do so. I have lesbian and gay friends- I wouldn't think of asking them any questions. I accept that we all figured out what we wanted to do.

Ake may feel differently about it.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:56 PM

Hawk has more understanding than all of you put together.

You hate objective discussion because you all want the chance to fall back to the mob mentality of personal abuse.

Even tho' I have stated many times in this thread that I am not anti- homosexual, you all try to infer that I am.

This thread has nothing to do with how many homosexual friends I have or you have. It is about the effect of homosexual marriage on the rights of everyone, and I have tried to argue from the point of view of those who believe in the institution of marriage as traditionally defined.

These people are not devils, or evil, or bigotted, or any of the other words you "liberals" like to trow around. they are Joe and Jane public....whether you like it or not.

I'm sorry my stance has deprived you of a "kill the bigot fest", but as Little Hawk says.....if you don't like it TOUGH!

Oh and Frank...I've spent my life fighting bigotry as a Communist Party member and as an anti war campaigner.
I have never denigrated any committed relationship, just don't lump me in with the lynch mob you fucker!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:59 PM

Well put, Ebbie. I don't find imagining most people's sexual habits 'appealing', regardless of their genders. So I don't. This leaves me free to enjoy the company of countless nice people who are physically unappealing to me.

Ake, I'm sorry you found my words insulting, but if your arguments do not denote a kind of homophobia, I am at a loss to describe them at all.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:18 PM

Don't apologise Bee.
You are at a loss to describe my arguments because you simply don't understand them or me.

Try reading Little Hawk's post, even you might gain some enlightenment, but I doubt it.

If this fails, just get back in the cage with the rest. But be careful, before long they usually start to devour themselves....

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM

akenaton

It is about the effect of homosexual marriage on the rights of everyone, and I have tried to argue from the point of view of those who believe in the institution of marriage as traditionally defined.

I have tried to respond in a frivolous way in my last few posts because this thread is so stupid, but there comes a point...

You have produced absolutely no evidence, even anecdotal, that the "vast majority" think the way you claim they do. Many of the people arguing against you are happily married heterosexual Christians. Several others have produced anecdotal evidence that people in general are accepting of gay relationships. You are on your own. Stop trying to disguise your own bigotry as defending the rights of the silent majority. Consider the possibilty that you might be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:50 PM

The thread stands.
People can read it and make up their own minds.
Thank you for your assistance ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:54 PM

For the first, and probably only, time, I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:55 PM

Worth looking at, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:02 PM

Thanks Bruce...Very interesting...Kinda puts things in perspective!

Hope all's well   Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:32 PM

Same with you, buddy.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:19 PM

Interesting graphic, Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:57 PM

wow...legal in Spain, serious penalty across in Morocco. It's Spain that surprises me.

And Guatemala? interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 12:48 AM

"This thread has nothing to do with how many homosexual friends I have or you have. It is about the effect of homosexual marriage on the rights of everyone, and I have tried to argue from the point of view of those who believe in the institution of marriage as traditionally defined."

Why on earth would you spend the better part of two weeks vehemently arguing a point of view that you claim is not your own?

"they are Joe and Jane public...whether you like it or not."

Hmmm...so who am I, and who are the rest of the people on this thread, and who are the other millions of people who DON'T believe that gay people should be denied the right of civil marriage? Joe and Jane Nobody-Cares-About-Your-Opinion-Now-Shut-Up?

For someone who claims to be "objective", I don't see you trying to argue the other side. I don't see you trying to appreciate the point of view of those who believe that "traditional" marriage is what you make it, and that compassion and empathy are just as important as the right of "Joe and Jane Sixpack" to define what marriage should be.

And you still haven't ever managed to convince us how Joe and Jane are being disenfranchised...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 12:49 PM

Even tho' I have stated many times in this thread that I am not anti- homosexual, you all try to infer that I am.

I am not inferring anything. I state it as a fact, made clear by
your own continued arguments against equal protection of matrimonial
law for homosexuals.

You can't say "I have nothing against black people" and then try
to keep them from moving into your neighborhood (or support your
neighbors' right to do same). If you do, you're either deluding
yourself or everyone else; perhaps both.

One of the best way of being anti-somebody is to deny them their
civil rights.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 01:20 PM

There's a distinction between, on the one hand, saying that same-sex couples who have entered into a registered civil partnership should have equal rights as heterosexual married couples and, on the other hand, insisting that the term marriage should be extended to cover both types of relationships.

In many other countries no problems have arisen in guaranteeing equal rights without extending the definition of marriage. So far as I can see this is the position which akenaton is in favour of. I can't se where any denial of civil rights is involved in this.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 01:38 PM

So ake, if you are not against same sex marriages, have we not all been just wasting our time?

If you are not against same sex marriages please say so. You are the only one who has been arguing that side of the question. We could put all this to rest.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,mac
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 02:30 PM

get this shirt lifting thread off this forum,for gods sake.Nobody gives a toss

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:02 PM

I am quite sure that those who believe in conventional marriage would be happy to go along with what Mcgrath has suggested.

This situation is already in place in many countries.

Ihave said all this earlier, obviously you have not been reading my posts.

I did add that the "homosexual activists" probably would not accept civil union, as they would see that as having to settle for less than they want.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:03 PM

McGrath, what you seem to be advancing is the idea of 'separate but
equal.' As was fairly well established during the effort to desegregate
American society, there really is no such thing. Separate, by legal
mandate, is inherently unequal.

By limiting same-sex couples to 'civil unions' you limit their
ability to call themselves 'married' in all sorts of documents
(such as deeds). For example, when taking out a deed on a property
it will read "Joseph Smith, a single man and Michael Smith a single
man" rather than "Joseph and Michael Smith, a married couple."

They are not being treated equally in civil society, because they
cannot use the term which best describes their relationship---
"married."

And that, sir, is absolutely a denial of a very important
civil right.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:15 PM

Those who believe in conventional marriage would probably go along with what McGrath has suggested.
This situation is already in place in many countries....see Peace's map.
I have written about this futher up the thread KB, you have obviously not been reading my posts.

Homosexual fundamentalists like Greg woul certainly not accept it, for the reasons he has given.

Its as we said right at the beginning, all about acceptance, it has to be the word, nothing else will do.

IT HAS TO BE A REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.....case closed Don!!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:34 PM

I have been reading your posts ake. You make strong statements and then later say that you are not stating your personal opinions. I would like to hear it straight up just once without qualification.

So I say again, if you are not against same sex marriages please say so.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:46 PM

Homosexual fundamentalists like Greg woul certainly not accept it, for the reasons he has given.

Excuse me?

I am neither a homosexual, nor a fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:01 PM

Does anyone have statistics on the success rate of heterosexual marriages as opposed to homosexual marriages?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:01 PM

Sorry Greg I didn't mean to infer that you were a homosexual, you did make that clear earlier.

(hetrosexual) homosexual activist??...The correct term can be quite important I believe.

KB...I give my personal opinions when I wish to..... I may just be a homosexual who believes in fairness and rights for all...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:03 PM

Well, that's it for me. Not wasting any more time here.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:08 PM

"Joseph Smith, a single man and Michael Smith a single man." That would be a daft way of putting it, because they aren't "single men" - they have entered formally into what in the UK would be called "a civil partnership". Something of the form "Joseph and Michael Smith, civil partners" would be a far more appropriate way of expressing that in this context.

It's not really analogous to the racial/racist use of "separate but equal", because that was about pretending there was a difference where there was no relevant difference whatsoever. If it were a question of asserting a difference between gay men and straight men, or lesbian women and straight women, in order to justify treating them differently as individuals, the analogy would indeed be fair - however that's not what is implied.

The point is it can be reasonably argued that there are differences between the relationships which can justify using different names. That's what I meant by the analogy of baseball and cricket or beer and cider.

It could well be that the popular definition of the word "marriage" might change over time, to include both kinds of relationships. That would be the time to change the dictionaries. In the meantime the task of bringing the USA into line with other countries where civil partnerships and marriages have equal legal status should not be delayed by treating the issue of the name as crucial, and it does soudn as if this could well happen.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:13 PM

"...because they aren't 'single men'" - as demonstrated by the fact that if either of them were to attempt to get married (to some woman) until and unless the civil partnership had been dissolved, they would be committing a serious offence, and any such "marriage" would be null and void.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:19 PM

Bruce...Wolfgang gave some statistics further up this thread.

Male/male divorce rates, very high compared to female/male.
female/ female roughly the same as female /male.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:20 PM

'"Joseph and Michael Smith, civil partners" '

Except when they're yelling at each other. That is when they are not civil partners.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:25 PM

Well, that also happens where people have gone through civil marriages. And also religious ceremonies...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:26 PM

And also of course in Civil Wars.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:52 PM

When I fill out the income tax form (hopefully) before April 15th every year, there are a couple of boxes I have to check. One says "Single," one says "Married, filing jointly," one says "Married, filing separately," and one says "Head of household." When both members of a married couple have income, they get the best tax break by checking "Married, filing jointly."

The form does not give the option "Civil Partners, filing jointly." If civil law defines "marriage" as a union between man and woman only, then same sex couples in a civil union do not qualify for the tax breaks that heterosexual couples get. If a committed same-sex couple tried to take advantage of this tax break, they might find themselves liable for a charge of tax fraud. Thisi is discrimination.

I am retired, my wife is still working. I qualify for Medicare, but as we all know, Medicare is pretty piss-poor coverage. My wife has health insurance as one of the benefits of her job, and she includes me under her insurance as her spouse—her marriage partner. There is no option for "civil partners." Once again, discrimination against same-sex couples.

This, and many other things, discriminate against same-sex couples, even in "civil unions," by denying them the rights and benefits that marriage would allow them.

These things are not a matter of someone's preferences or distastes. They are objective, concrete matters of discrimination against a specific minority.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, there is also the matter of the population explosion. Same-sex couples do not add to the problem. There are a few places in the world, specifically parts of Indonesia, where homosexuality is encouraged in hopes of keeping the birth-rate down.

But since heterosexuality and homosexuality are not matters of choice, there is little chance that these governments' efforts will accomplish their desired purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:07 PM

lets get the "facts" right at least......
In Sweden where civil partnerships have been established long enough for the kind of research about "divorce" it was found that homosexual unions between men were 1.48 times more like to break up than heterosexual marriages without children.
It was higher amongst female/female unions

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:10 PM

ooops! 1.49!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:18 PM

As far as I'm aware it's too early to produce any statistics on divorce rates for those countries that allow same sex marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM

Sounds as if your forms in the States ought to be modified, and your laws as well if necessary, to give that option - "Civil Partners, filing jointly." As has been done in many other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:57 PM

Modifying the forms does no good. The Federal Government doesn't
recognize 'civil partners' as anything but two single people.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:38 PM

There's your problem then. Whether you tackle it by changing the definition of marriage or by changing the discrimination against civil partnerships is surely a secondary matter. I'd suspect that there would be less resistance to the latter way of approaching it.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:38 PM

Emma B. -
:In Sweden where civil partnerships have been established long enough for the kind of research about "divorce" it was found that homosexual unions between men were 1.48 times more like to break up than heterosexual marriages without children. It was higher amongst female/female unions. " Or maybe 1.49
So what?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:44 PM

sorry Dick - just trying to introduce some objective information into the discussion! I get a bit fed up of "opinions" introduced as bold statements of fact!

"Bruce...Wolfgang gave some statistics further up this thread.

Male/male divorce rates, very high compared to female/male.
female/ female roughly the same as female /male."
- From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:19 PM

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 02:04 AM

I have always found Wolfgang to give his statistics honestly, whether they support his opinion or not....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 05:42 AM

"Same-sex couples' "divorce rates? Extremely different for male-male (very high compared to female-male) and female-female (low, probably even lower than female-male)."
Wolfgang

I would be interested in seeing the source of these statistics as they appear to disagree substantially from the survey carried out in Sweden 1995 and 2002 by the Institute For Marriage And Public Policy.

Of course this survey is only looking at legal breakdown of civil partnerships, the first country to grant same-sex marriage was The Netherlands in 2001, Belgium followed in 2003 and Canada Spain and South Africa in 2005 so it is a little premature for statistics of contrasting divorce rates to be available.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 12:29 PM

AND...These statistics are for male/ female unions without children.

If male/ female unions with children were taken into the equation the difference would be much higher.

This of course has nothing to do with the point we have been discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 01:15 PM

Akenaton - I know what motivates you now. You're a troll - pure and simple. You're full of opinions that may or may not be yours and may or may not be how you feel about the subject that we may or may not be discussing. And your true feelings about all of this may or may not have been expressed earlier in the thread if we would just bother to read it. Or not.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 01:32 PM

Actually I'm glad that the question about "divorce" rates was asked as it seems that there is (at least in the UK) a significant legal difference between Civil Partnerships and heterosexual marriage.

The grounds for dissolution of a civil partnership are that the partnership has broken down for good (i.e. irretreivable breakdown) by -
Unreasonable behaviour or
Two years seperation, and the consent of the other partner or
Five years seperation or
Desertion

Unlike heterosexual marriage this does NOT include adultery as a ground for dissolution of the partnership.

Like many on this thread I had understood that there was little real "discrimination" between the two forms of partnership in the UK now I'm not so sure........

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 06:30 PM

I think that a court would probably be open to the suggestion that adultery would count as "unreasonable behaviour" - though the question might arise as to whether "adultery" was a legally correct word for it, being a word that is traditionally associated with the term "marriage"

I don't think I've ever heard it used in that context.

Would I be correct in assuming that people who favour the word "marriage" being extended to include single sex relationships would see "adultery" as needing the same extension?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM

Surely there are NO same-sex divorce rates for those countries that don't allow it. So the rates for those countries are nil whereas in those that do recognise such partnerships it is much higher.

Therefore not allowing same sex marriage reduces the divorce rate, which everyone agrees is a good thing.

Amazing what statistics do...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 08:23 PM

McGrath of Harlow

Would I be correct in assuming that people who favour the word "marriage" being extended to include single sex relationships would see "adultery" as needing the same extension?

Well we can't have that. The vast majority see adultery as the union of a man and a woman.

We have come a long way indeed if hetrosexuals in conventional adulterous relationships should feel ashamed of their way of life and beliefs.