As I detailed, I'm advocating proactive help for certain people after examining the facts of their situation. It is circumstancially dependent.

As above.

I have love, not hatred for humans, and don't define a human by what they choose to do with their sex life.

Aha! DETRIMENT. Something I would not like to see occur. I'm speaking about maintain status quo for some, and choosing who I direct my energy towards giving a leg up. That is all.

This ain't English. I'm not sure I understand what it's even trying to say, but I get the sense it's horribly wrong.

This is the closest I've seen you come to the truth. Your belief is not based on rational thought, but rather religion and other spiritual values you hold. It is your personal view, your prejudice. As I said before, you think families should look like Ward Cleavers, and you think those that don't are somehow "lesser." As you say, it's fine for you to hold that belief. But, if you can't rationalize it -- or give us a compelling emotional reason to follow it (niether of which you have yet to do), you need to drop it. You stated your belief. It's no better than any other irrational belief. Don't pretend it's logical, though. ;)

Be big, accept your prejudice and get over it.

[ 02-11-2004, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

That's certainly our Yorick. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Your prejudice isn't against gays, it's against treating the gay union as "equal" to a hetero union. No one accused you of wishing your fag/lez friends ill. Rather, we point out that when those friends couple, you do not want to give them legal benefits the law normally accourds couples. YOu want to keep the penis/vagina union elevated.

I think some people have pointed out some things your beliefs cannot confront and withstand without prejudice. Your line of reasoning now suggests, as Illumina pointed out, that a divorced man and woman who got married (a la Brady Bunch) also are lesser. Of course, the two lesbians I cited earlier which put the kabash on your earlier argument, are still at the bottom of the barrel in your mind.

It's not a prejudice against the individual, it's a prejudice against the coupling.
And we gave you circumstances where gays deserved, logically, every bit as much "proactive help" as straight couples. So, the only "circumstances" it appears to depend on is whether the partners have the same genetalia.

[ 02-11-2004, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Ugh... I just saw the word game! And started by Chewie this time rather than Yorick.

[img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] <font size=16>CHEWIE!!!</font> [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]
Why'dya havta go there? [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]

UPDATE:

TOday's NY Times

February 11, 2004
Massachusetts Weighs a Deal on Marriages Between Gays
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON, Feb. 10 - Seeking to counteract last week's court decision allowing gay couples to marry in Massachusetts, state lawmakers on Tuesday fashioned what they called a compromise: a proposed amendment to the state's Constitution that would define marriage as a heterosexual institution but allow same-sex couples to join in civil unions.

The compromise was developed as legislators prepared for what is likely to be a divisive constitutional convention that begins on Wednesday and is expected to be dominated by the gay-marriage question.

Lawmakers had been scheduled to consider a different amendment, one that defined marriage solely as a relationship between a man and a woman and made no mention of same-sex couples. But some legislators worried that such a measure would be interpreted to preclude civil unions. ``There were many members of the Senate who felt that amendment was punitive as opposed to being inclusive,'' said Ann Dufresne, a spokeswoman for Robert E. Travaglini, the Senate president.

Mr. Travaglini, a Democrat who is the presiding officer of the convention, supports civil unions. ``We think the new amendment is a great bipartisan alternative that really seeks consensus,'' Ms. Dufresne said.

The convention has been on the calendar for months, but the push for a marriage amendment received new momentum with a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest court, last week, essentially ordering that Massachusetts begin granting marriage licenses to gay couples starting on May 17.

The gay-marriage issue could figure prominently in the presidential election, especially since the Democratic front-runner, Senator John Kerry, who supports civil unions and opposes same-sex marriage, is from Massachusetts. President Bush has condemned the Massachusetts court; several conservative groups are pressing him to support a federal constitutional amendment limiting marriage to unions joining a man and a woman.

The convention may also stimulate activity across the nation, as advocates on each side elsewhere seek to use the Massachusetts example. Already, 38 states have laws defining marriage as a heterosexual institution, and 16 states are considering constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriages.

No matter what happens during the Massachusetts convention, the constitutional amendment could not take effect until the end of 2006, at the earliest.

Several Senate and House members said Tuesday evening that the new amendment had the best shot at passage because some legislators who had been undecided would vote for it - as well as at least a few supporters of gay marriage, some of whom might back the amendment because it seemed the best compromise at the moment. One of the amendment's writers was State Senator Robert Havern, a Democrat and supporter of gay marriage who is the assistant majority leader.

But the new amendment is also likely to lose some supporters of the original proposal. The House speaker, Thomas M. Finneran, a Democrat and opponent of same-sex marriage, called the proposed amendment inappropriate, suggesting that an issue like civil unions belonged not before a constitutional convention but during a normal legislative session.

As a result, the proposal only heightened the frenzied atmosphere in the Statehouse as advocates on all sides inundated lawmakers at the Statehouse with telephone calls, rallies, meetings and a barrage of last-minute politicking on the eve of the convention.

Gay marriage opponents wheeled in boxes of more than 18,000 petitions signed by people across the country, while proponents brought in a group of children of same-sex couples to ask Mr. Travaglini not to support any amendment that did not allow for same-sex marriage.

``I've heard from people on the left that it's totally unacceptable and preposterous, and I've heard from people on the right that it's totally unacceptable and preposterous,'' State Senator Brian Lees, a Republican who is the Senate minority leader, said of the compromise. Mr. Lees helped write the new measure as a way of guaranteeing that same-sex couples have the same rights and benefits as married couples.

``It very rarely happens that you get both the left and the right saying the same thing,'' Mr. Lees said. ``When that has happened in my career, I know that I'm on the right track.''

Many lawmakers were also trying to figure out how to deal with the court's deadline permitting same-sex marriages as of May 17.

If either amendment passes at the convention, the earliest it could take effect would be November 2006 because it would have to pass a second session of the Legislature two years from now, then be approved in public referendum. That time lag leaves open the question of what would happen to same-sex couples who got married, only to have their marriages outlawed by amendment two years later.

The proposed amendment drafted on Tuesday seeks to address that by saying that any same-sex couples who get married would be considered joined under civil unions if the amendment ultimately is approved. Mr. Finneran and others were considering other alternatives, like a bill to block the issuance of marriage licenses on May 17, but legal experts said the courts would probably strike down such a bill.

It remained uncertain Tuesday evening whether any marriage measure would even come to a vote on Wednesday at the convention.

So messy are the mechanics of a constitutional convention that although gay marriage is on the agenda, it is the eighth item on a list of 10. Two-thirds of the 199 legislators would have to vote to move it earlier in the schedule, and several lawmakers said that opponents of both amendments may try to orchestrate a filibuster.

One proposed amendment ahead of gay marriage would require that judges be elected, not appointed - including those on the Supreme Judicial Court. Some lawmakers were apparently angered enough by the court's ruling to consider trying to persuade their colleagues to vote for judicial elections.

Lawmakers anticipate a freewheeling convention that could go on for several days. Two years ago, when the Legislature had a gay-marriage amendment before its constitutional convention, the Senate president at the time gaveled the convention to a close before any vote could take place. Spectators in the gallery erupted in pandemonium.

Wednesday's convention was expected to draw several thousand spectators, though only a fraction of them would be able to be in the chamber during the proceedings.

In the days since the court ruling, the 160 House members and 39 Senate members - there is one vacancy in the Senate - have been buffeted by lobbying from many corners. The Roman Catholic archbishop, Sean O'Malley, has lobbied the legislators, most of whom at Catholic, attending rallies and issuing statements to try to convince them to define marriage as a heterosexual institution.

Lawmakers like Mr. Lees, who oppose gay marriage but said they wanted to achieve some measure of equality for gay men and lesbians, were trying to persuade both sides that the new amendment was the best option, that each side risked a far more one-sided loss without it.

``We should not engage in a divisive, all-or-nothing debate that may end by eliminating all rights for same-sex couples,'' said a letter to senators signed by Mr. Lees and Mr. Travaglini. ``The proposed amendment would put the definition of marriage on the ballot in 2006 and give the people the opportunity to vote on the issue, while ensuring that we treat same-sex couples with respect and fairness.''

Several legislators said they would accept the new amendment. And Representative Paul J. Donato, a Democrat who co-sponsored the original amendment, said he had not ruled out voting for the compromise. ``It is something that I would certainly look at,'' Mr. Donato said.

Others, like Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, a Democrat who supports gay marriage, said they would not vote for the compromise. So did some gay-marriage opponents who favored the original amendment.

And many advocates on both sides objected to the compromise.

``We couldn't support putting into the Constitution a constitutional right for homosexual couples to have civil unions,'' said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group based in Washington that has brought in lobbyists to support the original amendment. ``To put it alongside the definition of marriage, I think, is troubling. Placing that into the Constitution is going to be problematic for a lot of people.''

Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Political Caucus, said an amendment that included civil unions would ``enshrine in the Constitution permanent second-class citizenship for gay people, and quite frankly it's reprehensible.''

She said other states and the federal government might eventually be forced by lawsuits to recognize same-sex marriages, but would be unlikely to be forced to give equal benefits to couples in civil unions. She acknowledged that in the event of a referendum, a compromise amendment would be much harder for gay-marriage advocates to oppose than an amendment that made no mention of same-sex couples.

Katie Zezima contributed reporting for this article.

<font color=deepskyblue>I will make my stance very easy to either support or attack, depending on your personal views.

I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle based solely on my religious beliefs. So, yes, I am prejudiced against it. However, I do have homosexual friends and think no less of them for their lifestyle, even though I disagree with it.

(Another example provided purely for illustrative purposes would be that I also disagree with recreational use of illegal drugs, but many of my friends from college DID use drugs recreationally. Despite our difference on the subject, they are still my friends to this day).

Despite my "prejudice" against the homosexual lifestyle, I cannot come up with one, single, logical argument against gay marriages. I personally prefer "civil union", but (again) that is based on my religious prejudice.

(BTW, I also believe that homosexuals CAN go to Heaven, just like straight/heteros can. God does not distinguish between sins....only we humans do that).

Homosexuals CAN procreate and produce biological children...not with their chosen partner admittedly, but they can use a surrogate and produce offspring that ARE bioligically "thiers" and ARE also biological siblings (if they use the same surrogate). I personally know a male/male couple that has done exactly that. They are now the proud Daddy's of two young girls (Or soon will be. Don't know for sure if the second girl has been born yet or not).

Gay couples can also adopt. It is expensive and their are lots of barriers, but the children available for adoption have no less need for a loving family than any other child. In fact, I would argue they have far MORE need of a loving and STABLE family setting. While my religious prejudice would prefer the family unit contain parents of opposite gender, I readily admit that same gender parents could easily provide a quality, stable, and very loving family setting for these most needy of chldren.

Despite my religious prejudice, I DO NOT support the idea of a Constitutional Amendment defining "marriage" as "one woman and one man" and I would actually vote against such an amendment if given the opportunity.

I think that covers all the relevant issues discussed to this point.</font>

Cerek, as always, it's evident you come at this with your opinion but also with a "let others live their life as they see fit" view. I think yours represents a commonly-held view. Most of us would prefer to see straight couples raising kids, just as we would prefer many aspects of what we consider to be "normal."

I think most people, though, including President Bush, recognize the need to address the legal ramifications and needs created by "alternative coupling." Many are willing to accept "civil unions" as a marriage substitute gays can use that basically is only distinguishable in name and not substance. Many of us would be willing to allow same-sex couples to use contract laws (e.g. through a government service) that could also fill the gaps (durable powers of attorney, "kinship" papers, "couples" tax benefits, dual adoptions, etc.) -- in fact I read the other day about one of the RNC "think tanks" that's working on this.

In short, most of those who are against gay "marriage" are really against it not because they want to deny rights to others but because they don't want to feel the "oogie-ness" in the pit of their stomach that their normal hetero marriage is legally (and, in name) the same as same-sex unions.

Hey, I get it. Men turn me off. I respect their right to be together, but when I see two men snuggling I usually feel a little turned off. Just me -- I find men very unattractive. Heck, I don't even understand why women like them. Of course, I'm pretty sure I'm a lipstick lesbian trapped in a man's body, but I digress. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

The thing is, though, that when we confront the situation of the rights gays have, most of us think it's okay to let them live their lives in peace -- AND with an even playing field of benefits and rights.

So, to the extent the notion of to-may-to/to-mah-to becomes involved, it's just a name and I see it as a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. (And, yes, I'm sure some people disagree and think it's all-important).

What gets me about Yorick's opinion on the matter, as I understand it, is that Yorick wants to deny the rights themselves.

And, (sorry to discuss you in the third person) Yorick, that's what I'd like to understand. You say you've been friends with gays, and that you respect them. But, you want to deny them any benefits to coupling. If your issue was one of nomenclature, I'd lay off you. But, it's not -- it's a denial of rights.

Is it because you want to encourage them to give up the lifestyle and become hetero? Is it because you want children living in a gay household to suffer? What's the motivation for denying them the rights?
______________________________________

Tangent thought: In the end I keep coming back to the simplest solution -- abolishing legal/secular marriage. Keep church/religious marriages but 86 the legal distinction and treat people as people, whether coupled or not. Hell, marriages don't last long these days anyway -- it's not like they're really about "til death do us part" anymore.

I don't understand why my p.o.v is being misunderstood and misrepresented.

I am writing English Timber. Perhaps I should be writing in American?

If every human naturally has two oranges, that's great. That's the "status quo".

Negative discrimination, is taking away an orange.

Positive encouragement is giving an extra orange, or giving back an orange that's been taken away.

Society at the moment takes oranges away from blood families.

I am suggesting, I will be giving one of MY oranges to a blood family.

The homosexual couple still have their two oranges as far as I can see. They have status quo. No better, no worse off than any other pair of people cohabiting. Why should I elevate cohabiting homosexual men above cohabiting hetrosexual men, merely because they choose to express their love sexually? And don't tell me love is any less valid because there is no sex, please. Love and sexual expression of love are not inseperable.

As I said, is social encouragement a RIGHT we were all born with, or is it a BONUS that certain societies, certain people choose to perpetuate.

It seems the American "I deserve" attitude runs rampant on this forum. The idea that somehow, there is this absolute standard of life that things like snow, and zero possessions are horrific realities no human should endure.

We were all born owning a house, suv and good job weren't we? Society OWES us right?? Isn't that the same mentality that drives maniac killers with a grudge against a society that didn't give them what they were owed?

This is the reality. We are born with nothing, not even the means to feed or clothes ourselves, nor the means to adequately communicate.

All is a bonus. Certainly, any benefits a collection of people choose to give to certain individuals within that group are. There is no "right" to social recognition. There is no "right" to trust, respect, handouts, taxbreaks, healthcare, or many of the other benefits so many take for granted.

Let's get some perspective here please.
I have never said police should come in and break up gays, nor hike up rent if gays are living in a space, nor fireing gays, nor forbidding them from making life commitments, or combining their property or anything else. Find anywhere in this thread where I have said gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

What I have said, is that I have a problem with society which at the moment puts unnecessary pressure on the ability of blood families to stay together. I advocate reliveing that pressure, and giving assistance to the said family.

The industrial revolution took the father away from the home. Since then, the mother has been taken away from the home also. Zero choice, zero support.

That is my issue.
Please, read my words instead of putting your own meaning to them.

[ 02-11-2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

In Vermont, the "odd couple" male roomies you mentioned actually COULD get a civil union.

Yorick, let me give you a couple of examples of how this is more than mere "entitlement" theory. (And I note that's an odd accusation to toss at me, because I hate entitlement attitudes and agree with you about that). These are REAL examples that I saw NUMEROUS instances of when working on the Civil Union in Vermont.

1. Gay males want to adopt a child. Only one can adopt legally, so that's what they do. Partner "A" adopts the child. He and Partner "B" raise the child in a loving home for 12 years. Partner "A" dies. Now, "B" has been a father in fact, but has no legal relationship with the kid. A's parents, who have never seen the kid because they couldn't stand their "faggot son" now show up. Guess what, they take the kid from "B" because they are the "next of kin." Poor B or not? You decide, but I personally want to address his problem.

2. Lesbian couple, together for 25 years. One tragically ill. She is lying in I.C.U. at the hospital on her deathbed alone. Again, relatives are not present because they did not agree with her lifestyle. All she asks is to see her partner one last time before she dies. All her partner wants is to be by her side. However, the prejudiced hospital staff don't like "dikes" and refuse to let the healthy partner see the ill one. She is not legally the "next of kin" (as a married partner would be), so she has no recourse. The one partner dies alone tragically, and the other suffers the worst moment of discrimination she could have ever imagined. No goodbyes for these ladies, I'm afraid.

Do these stories not compel you? Is seeing your life partner on their death bed an orange? Is keeping the child you raised an orange? If so, is it one we should give to some people and not others, based solely on what organ sits between their legs?

It's more complicated than entitlement if you ask me.

You still have not distinguished the bi-sexual swinger lesbian couple I mentioned a page back. Further, I asked not for an essay on oranges and entitlement, but a simple explanation of WHY you wanted to give benefits to one group and not others.

Let me also ask another basic set of questions. Do you think a homosexual person can raise children effectively? What about a homosexual couple? What about a single person of any orientation? Why?