Equal Rights for Gay Marriage

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:21 PM

"I think the lifestyle is dangerous and unhealthy .."

So is ski jumping and auto racing...and coal mining... and driving cars in urban areas. LIFE is a risk...but people who are sane and reasonably careful can ski, race autos, and drive cars...etc..as well as have a happy life with someone of the same sex.

Careless behavior is what is unsafe, not sexual practices in and of themselves.....but informed adults should be able to assess what risks there are and make their own decision about proceeding.

Ake--- you keep quoting statistics and 'insinuating' that 'something should be done' about same-sex relationships. What DO you suggest be done? How DO you think society should respond to perfectly sane, decent people who just happen to differ from YOU in their sexual orientation? I'll guarantee you that denying them equal rights is not going to alter their orientation!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM

Do the homosexual health figures mean absolutely nothing to you Sorcha?
Does harm to ones self not count?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Sorcha
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:00 PM

I guess I just don't understand why it bothers some people what consenting adults do. Do as you will, but cause no harm.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:46 PM

Homosexuality wants it ALL.

I have an issue with homoseual health and life expectancy figures.
I think the lifestyle is dangerous and unhealthy and should not be promoted as "just another lifestyle"

Don.... this subject has been well discussed, but Amos keeps putting it back on the agenda. Dont expect opponents to keep silent while your side continue to bombard us with propaganda.

I thought we were supposed to have agreed to be civil to one another,
"homophobically obsessed suspects"
"Something very pathological going on with these folks"
"Our resident homophobes"

All on your first visit to this thread!
I dont like being called homophobic, I object to the promotion of homosexual practice on reasonable grounds.

All of these threads have been started by the pro homosexual marriage/ pro homosexuality in mainstream society lobby.

Your side are the obsessives.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Sorcha
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:05 PM

thank you Amos. More succint than I was. And at least in the US, a 'Civil union' IS a type of marriage. The Church Per Se has NO legal status to perform a marriage. They do 'weddings'. But...MOST preachers have passed an exam/something that conferrs the privilige of conducting a civil marrige.

The Wedding and relgious 'contract' has NOTHING to do with marrige.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:00 PM

I see the usual homophobically obsessed suspects have come swooping in on this thread, all prepared to inundate us with the same old, tired arguments that they used on at least two other threads.

I REALLY, REALLY WONDER why they are so adamant about the matter when it would really have no detrimental effect whatsoever on them, or on society in general—unless they, themselves, let it. Something very pathological going on with these folks.

As said by Mrs. Patrick Campbell, the actress for whom George Bernard Shaw wrote the role of Eliza Doolittle in his play, Pygmalion, the inspiration for the musical "My Fair Lady:"

"It doesn't make any difference what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."

Our resident homophobes seem to be under the impression that marriage is about nothing but sex.

I feel sorry for you guys. There's a whole lot more to it than that!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Royston
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM

GfS, it's not gay people or rights campaigners that want - as you say - "recognized as to who or what they want to have sex with"

It's you that wants to reduce people to "who or what they want to have sex with" by dividing up rights along lines of sexuality.

It is rights campaigners that are trying to get you to stop defining people by "who or what they want to have sex with"

You need to understand that.

I thought you had some sort of rational epiphany on the "Death Penalty" thread. Ho hum, it looks like the nasty tape is whirring in your head again.

I think that civil partnerships are an entirely adequate and reasonable response to all the issues of partnership rights. I don't understand why people's religious beliefs can't just be respected in the private spheres of the congregations in which they choose to worship.

There are churches, mosques, synagogues, temples that are prepared to marry or bless same sex partnerships. People can just go to one of them if they need anything that the register office can't/won't offer.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:15 PM

This is just BS, Ake. THere is no way in which one couple's marriage lessens the civil rights of another. Christianity has nothing to do with any of it.

Unless you are talking about the Chrostian sanctification, which has nothing to do with the legal and civil status.

There is ZERO reduction of others' rights by having the legal status of marriage offered equally without regard to gender preference. To claim there is is to allow oneself to fall freely into the deep end of kookiness.

And the difference between the CIVIL rights and privileges is all we are talking about. I don't give a shit what one bunch of religionists or another thinks about the issue from a religious perspective--that's their business. But marriage has always had a legal definition which is not being changed by extending it to couples who are gay.


A

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:01 PM

Sorcha: "Scuse me, but why would the 'right' of a gay/lesbian person to have a civil union 'infringe' on any way of a Christians right to same? Don't Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, etc have marriage?"

Besides mixing up issues, civil unions is one thing, and people can do that if they choose. Those who do that should do just that, and not re-define 'marriage' to suit themselves, or to be validated by a name, rather than a function.

besides, why is is so important for homosexuals to be recognized as to who or what they want to have sex with. I don't know a lot of heterosexuals proclaiming that they should be 'accepted' for who or what, or how they fuck....nor trying to form a political party policy because they prefer to be as 'normal' living beings...with the instincts to SURVIVE and REPRODUCE.....which by the way, is a known and accepted, and true attribute for ALL living things on this planet. If one has something that stands in the way of that, it is known as a dysfunction. Not MY definition....but it it, what it is. Does that mean they are not living?..NO!...it just means that they have an area in which they are dysfunctional..and that is an emotional/mental posture, that keeps them from surviving, and REPRODUCING, as any normal living thing does. If you don't like it, then try re-defining what is considered fully living. I'm only pointing out the definitions....regardless of any political slant or bent or posturing. Others may make it a political issue, I'm only keeping politics and science free from the political stand, that wishes to dictate to science.

This shouldn't be a source of debate....unless one's political stance is NOT rooted in reality, but rather wishful idealism.
Thank you,
GfS

P.S. If you disagree, read it again...stupid arguments are not going to change FACTS. they can only get subscribes to take it politically on 'faith'...but then, I watch a lot of political whiners attack peoples faith...go figure!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:36 PM

I think it's a good question. Do Muslim marriages infringe on Christians' rights? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:35 PM

What do people fear from gay folk being able to get married? What possible harm can it do to anyone?

Should we also re-invoke where women are the property of the man they are married to?

Historically things get changed as we become more civilised and aware of each other's diversity, attitudes and cultures. Why is that such a difficult concept for some?

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:00 PM

We are trying to have an adult discussion here....please stop acting dumb.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Sorcha
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:52 PM

Scuse me, but why would the 'right' of a gay/lesbian person to have a civil union 'infringe' on any way of a Christians right to same? Don't Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, etc have marriage?

Does THAT infringe on Christian rights too?

And what Amos said.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:42 PM

1.... Read the study!

2....The figures do not lie...regardless of what causes them!

3.....In this case the rights of one minority are infringing the rights of another...re-definition is an infringment (I want to be in your club, but I want to change all the rules)...Joke is, they dont want to be in the club at all.....but Amos does! :0)

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:33 PM

1. The issue is not those who are not but those who are, and "general' propositions do not apply.

2. It is actually promiscuity which tens to be dangerous, in either persuasion, not sanctioned monogamy.

3. Marriage is not a Christian artifact in this context, it is a civil and social artifact. Christians did not define it or invent it civilly. People wearing CIVIL hats did that, regardless of whether they were Baptist or worshipers of Anthrax the Imponderable or none of the above. Or, for that matter, Thor, Loki and company.


A

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:25 PM

1.....Homosexuals in general are not interested in monogamy or "marriage"...other than for benefit reasons (Scandinavian study)

2.... The homosexual lifestyle in general terms is unhealthy and dangerous(CDC and UNAIDS hiv/aids figures.

3..... Christians and other groups also have rights (redefinition of "marriage")

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Sorcha
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:56 PM

Uh...sure, GfS. Ever hear of AI?
Done on infertile herero couples all the time. Why not GL ones?

Oh, right, their sexual orientation makes them pedophiles or something.....

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:17 PM

Bull. Plenty of barren heteros raise children. I know one young woman who solved her temporary financial crisis by becoming a proxy mother twice in a row. It paid well and provided health insurance. Her clients weren't gay but they could as well have been.


A

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:08 PM

Equal ability to bear children, too???????????

It's Fantasy Land revisited!

GfS

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:20 PM

"March 30, 2010 (The Progress Report)


by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald

A Worthy Repeal Campaign


Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- after 1,260 days in office in which more than 2,000 people have been discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) -- belatedly issued more lenient guidelines for enforcing the policy that prohibits gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. The new rules are meant to keep the law from being used "to launch witch hunts or settle grudges" before Congress acts to repeal it and "represent the first significant step by the administration to address what [President] Obama calls an injustice." Though they do not represent a full repeal, Gates described the new guidelines as ''an important improvement in the way the law is put into practice." The changes give "a greater measure of common sense and common decency for handling what are complex and difficult issues for all involved," he said. But Gates also stressed that Congress should not repeal the policy before the Pentagon finishes its year-long review of the law. "There is a great deal we don't know about this, in terms of the views of our servicemembers, in terms of the views of their families and influences," Gates said. "There is a lot we'd have to address in terms of what would be required in the way of changed regulations in terms of benefits. There are a lot of unanswered questions in terms of the implementation of this." The new guidelines are a critical first step in making sure every man and woman with the ability and willingness to serve is allowed to do so, but they are no substitute for full legislative repeal of DADT. That repeal should happen sooner rather than later. The Senate has introduced legislation that would repeal the law in 270 days and require the military to develop a clear implementation strategy. As Center for American Progress studies haven shown, linking congressional repeal with Pentagon implementation makes strong strategic sense because it will ensure that the transition to open service will be smooth, orderly, and fully consistent with the rigors of military service and unit readiness.

NEW DADT GUIDELINES: The new DADT guidelines, which apply to all pending and future discharge cases, effectively limit enforcement of DADT to those cases where a servicemember actively outs himself or herself. The discharge of enlisted personnel must now be approved by higher-ranked officers. Information provided by third parties must be given under oath and the use of hearsay will be discouraged. The new rules also redefine what constitutes a reliable person, with special scrutiny on third parties that may be motivated to harm the accused servicemember, and stipulate that certain confidential information obtained from lawyers, clergy, doctors, and security clearances cannot be used to begin a separation. The changes "constitute a solid first step to help reign in many of the abuses of the policy that have become common practice over the past seventeen years," said Alexander Nicholson, a former U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under DADT and the current Executive Director of Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans. "These changes are by no means a substitute for full legislative repeal of the law this year, but they are certainly a good start,""

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:06 PM

*I* have thought for 30+ years that all people should be able to enter into any relationship, including same-sex, polygamy, polyandry, etc., that doesn't involve those not able to read and understand a contract....as in minors and animals and those with diagnosed mental problems.

The catch? If is to be a non-standard 'marriage',they MUST design a legal document setting out all responsibilities, rights, inheritance, raising of children, property considerations...etc, etc... and have the document approved by a special 'court' which makes sure nothing contravenes OTHER laws. It would require a HIGH fee for such a license and classes & interviews of all proposed participants.

Do I seriously think it is likely anything like that would ever be approved? Not likely.....maybe in a couple states like Oregon. I just think it is wise to have a route to have controls on something that will happen anyway.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 03:43 PM

""all rights as if they did the deed according to the law.""

In all matters when both parties are alive that's true Olddude, but when one dies, unless there is a will all bets are off.

As I said above, I worked with a lady who was kicked out of her home, and lost everything but her clothes and jewellery in exactly that way.

The relatives (vultures) got in so fast it would have made your head spin.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 09:12 AM

Ah. "It" is disgusting.

Two people stand up before the community they live in, and promise to love and honor one another and be faithful to each other. They are recognized in their status and gain the right to re[resent each other, inherit, and some other legal rights.


Yes it is horrid, isn't it? Especially when one is a different religion. Icky. Or color!! Even worse. These people should learn their place, is what... They should learn too behave properly, like we do...

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:23 AM

Bubblyrat, YOU GOT IT!!!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: bubblyrat
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:14 AM

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion,and mine is that it is absolutely disgusting. Whatever next ?? Be allowed to marry your horse ? Have a civil partnership with a minor ?? No wonder the Muslims hate us !!!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 02:49 AM

In the UK the canard of the 'common-law marriage' persists in some quarters, tho lawyers never tire of denying its validity and denouncing it as a complete myth — I remember one who cogently and pithily summed it up by saying, "You might as well call a nut cutlet a common-law steak".

But we do have a fully legal and recognised system for gay/lesbian partnerships which brings many of the same rights as marriage for heterosexuals: it involves the same sort of formal ceremony before the registrar, and is called a Civil Partnership. Many [indeed most] of my gay friends in long-term relationships have entered into Civil Partnerships & feel much happier & more secure as a result.

It is my impression that this is the sort of thing that many of the States of the Union are feeling towards, or in some cases have achieved, Am I right about that?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:43 PM

I think all heterosexuals pretty much have that now ? after x number of years I think they call it common law marriage or something like that, all rights as if they did the deed according to the law. I am no lawyer but they discuss it many times on TV. Now just people living together for economic reasons like a brother and sister. I think that is were all the power of attorney and legal stuff has to be setup ... don't know how that works or is it just they are the closest kin under the law and already have that authority? don't know, good question

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM

Me too John.

All couples, without regard to gender, race, colour, creed, sexual orientation, political orientation, who choose to establish a long standing co-habiting relationship, whether sexual, or platonic, should have the same rights.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:23 PM

What SINSULL said at 02:08

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Ernest
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:16 PM

That also opens up a huge new business field for divorce lawyers!

;0)
Ernest

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: SINSULL
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:13 PM

I just had an epiphany: if you go by Bill Clinton's definiton of sex, it can only take place between a man and a woman. All other activities are just...what? extraneous, maybe?

That opens up a huge vista of perfectly legal and acceptable possibilities. Not sure where I am headed with this. I need more time to organize my train of thought.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: SINSULL
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:08 PM

I have always thought that any benefits available to married couples should be available to ALL couples who co-habitate and sign a document legalizing their partnership. This includes siblings who choose to live together as well. Maybe a civil union including but not presuming a sexual relationship.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:58 PM

In the UK non married cohabiting partners have the same rights as married, so long as both are alive.

When one partner dies, however, the other partner gets nothing unless there is a will leaving property to him/her.

Absent the will, the relatives of the deceased can move in and grab the lot.

I worked alongside a woman who lost everything after twenty seven years of unmarried partnership.

All irrelevant to the argument, of course, as they could have married and chose not to. Hardly the same as being prevented by discriminatory law.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:45 PM

Oh? Are their rights being denied? (You mean non-married 'couples')?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:12 PM

What about equal rights, for heterosexual co-habiting couples too?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 12:53 PM

The problem with anything that DC decides to do is that, being a colony of US goevernemnt, everything must be approved by Congress...

Look at medical marijuana... DC voted for it over 10 years ago and Congress said "No"... When one looks at the health care reform package then it's not too far of a stretch to see the minority in Congress prevailing on same sex marriage in DC and saying "No", yet again...

B~

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Charmion
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 12:48 PM

Cool.

They've almost caught up with stuffy old Ontario.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 12:25 PM

A decade of progress in gay rights.

"More states have anti-discrimination laws, more top corporations protect workers based on sexual orientation, and gay youth are finding more support in school, according to findings from a study by the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund and the Movement Advancement Project, a think tank specializing in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues.

In the latest step for gay rights, the Washington, D.C., City Council voted Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage, making it the first jurisdiction south of the Mason-Dixon Line to do so. Because Washington is a federal district, Congress has 30 working days to veto the law.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut and will be legal in New Hampshire on Jan. 1.

"When they're working in the day-to-day trenches, sometimes people don't see the progress that has been made," said Matt Foreman, who directs the gay and immigrant rights program at the Haas foundation. The organization, which has poured $42 million into LGBT causes in the past decade, commissioned the report to chart progress over that time.

"An increasing number of people (44 percent of Americans) are living in a state that provides nondiscrimination protections to people," Foreman said. Ten years ago, the study found that only 24 percent of Americans could make that claim."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/16/MNML1B484M.DTL#ixzz0ZsDt2LYh
"

Subject: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:18 AM

D.C. Council Approves Gay Marriage

By IAN URBINA
Published: December 15, 2009 NYT

WASHINGTON — The City Council passed a measure Tuesday legalizing same-sex marriage, making the nation's capital the first jurisdiction below the Mason-Dixon Line to allow such unions.

The bill, which passed by an 11-to-2 vote, may still face obstacles in Congress, among city voters and in the courts, but most advocates of same-sex marriage say they expect it to become law by spring. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has said he will sign the bill.

"Today's vote is an important victory not only for the gay and lesbian community but for everyone who supports equal rights," said Councilman David A. Catania, an independent and the author of the bill.