Looks like another shift to the right!

[Timber Loftis]

Pritchke wants to know why we don't allow some legal benefits similar to "marriage" without calling it marriage. That's why Vermont passed the "civil union" -- not "gay marriage." That is exactly what they did. And no, unlike our oft-times more enlightened brethren up there in Calgary and other parts of Canuckia, we only have "common law" marriages in certain states, and only between a man and a woman.

Spelca mentions you must be married by an official in Slovenia. In the USA, ordained ministers are given a legal grant to perform legally-binding weddings (i.e. so long as rules like incest, "not gay," or "not already married" are followed so as to make the union legal), so their function is double -- both legal and religious -- and the ceremony is binding. You can go to a Justice of the Peace or Judge and get married, but a minister has the authority too.

MagiK has gotten kicked a couple of times for mentioning that normal marriage should be preferred because kids can result from it. I will reiterate the notion that octegenarians, infertile couples, and couples not intending to have kids are allowed to marry. So, that is an "excuse" to exercise a prejudice, not a sound reason -- it is simply too flawed. Besides, the world has too many babies as is -- let's get more responsible as a society about this, please. (See this thread.) While I respect many things about catholocism, the whole "every sperm is sacred" strive to overpopulate the world is stupid, stupid, stupid.

MagiK also points out that race is different because you are born with it. Actually, I took his side in some rather robust newspaper debates in law school, which put me on many professor's s**t lists (but, they still gave me good grades [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] ). In short, I believe some people *are* born with it, and some choose the gay lifestyle. I believe my cousin and life-long friend when he tells me what it was like to pray every night in grade school that God please take those feelings away. And, also, religion can be chosen, as someone pointed out. The ultimate solution here is that the "innate and immutable characteristic" is only one part of the Constitution's test to determining what is a minority deserving some specific protection under the law. "Traditionally discriminated against" is another big factor -- and gays certainly fall under this rubrik. So, while gays may or may not be born gay, that is only one aspect to consider when determining the legal protections they deserve. I will point out that some disabled folks are born that way, and some become that way through disease or accident.

MagiK does mention that he does not want to regulated the bedroom activities of consenting adults. This, I agree with. So, he nor I is going to prohibit a lesbian couple from living together for 40 years (yes, it happens). He, however, seems to think there is some justice in not considering them to be "next of kin" when it comes time to sit by the deathbed or make those all-important life decisions, such as pull the plug or not. I, on the other hand, find extreme injustice in this - an injustice that turns a blind eye to reality and says "na na na na" over and over again to ignore an obvious problem.

Boy, can I derail a threat or what? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[ 05-19-2003, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: 2. Society aka the Government give preferential to heterosexual unions over homeosexual and or single people because the hetero union contributes more to the societys continuance than does either of the other two catagorys. Hetero unions result in new baby tax payers ensuring the continuance of the tax base...No way a homosexual union or single people will increase the tax base unless they perform in a hetero manner.

The only fitting reply I can think of to this is ...........


Bollocks! [/QUOTE] So I assume that this means you have no rational response to a simple truism?

Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: This is much like saying that discrimination against religious minorities is just fine because religion is a choice. Those Jews in Europe in the early 1930’s have no reason to complain, they chose to become Jewish and they chose to remain Jewish so their persecution is their entire fault. Just as a note the gay community would rather it not be found that homosexuality is genetically determined. This is largely due to the fear that if this is found to be the case then the conservative christen faction will begin advocating pre-natal testing and abortions for any unborn babies found to be gay.

Umm I do not believe I said it would be good for anyone to be persecuted...I just made a distinction between two groups.

This fall I wil be attending the (heterosexual)wedding of a good friend who in her early 20’s was diagnosed with ovarian cnacer. Seven years in remission she is ready to settle down. However she will never be able to have children. By your logic she should not be allowed to marry as this union will not “contribute” to society.

An exception to the rule..the very fact that there are approximatelly 6 BILLION humans on the planet at this moment sort of proves my point here.
[/QUOTE]

[ 05-19-2003, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by pritchke: They extracted a promise from him to meet with a group of “reformed” ex-gays. Donut what is the source? It smells like onion to me.

I thought that strange. If they were ex-gays and then reformed, doesn't that make them gay!

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: 2. Society aka the Government give preferential to heterosexual unions over homeosexual and or single people because the hetero union contributes more to the societys continuance than does either of the other two catagorys. Hetero unions result in new baby tax payers ensuring the continuance of the tax base...No way a homosexual union or single people will increase the tax base unless they perform in a hetero manner.

Just a comment on this - if the reason to favour heterosexual marriages over homosexual ones is primarily because the union will result in children, then why should elderly people be allowed to get married? If you have two 80 year olds, they are even less likely than a homosexual couple to have children (a lesbian couple for instance could use donor sperm), and yet they receive the same legal benefits as a young couple who are planning to have a passel of kids. Similarly a young couple who never plan to have children, suppose they have had a vasectomy/hysterectomy? [/QUOTE] All exceptions to the vast majority of the rule AJ [img]smile.gif[/img] I didn't say it was right or fair...Im saying that it was the hetero union that allowed us to go from 2 humans to 6 Billion humans....no other comingling would have increased the likelyhood of survival and much much later increased the size of the tax base.

Lets not get the Idea that magiK is a Homophobe or a Gay basher. Im just pointing out why things are the way they are. You can find an exception to nearly every rule if you look hard enough...but the vast majority will fit the rule.

Originally posted by skywalker: I guess my wife and I are undermining the whole process. We got married with no intention of ever having children. We must be subversives,. Mark

Good luck [img]smile.gif[/img] I had those very same intentions [img]smile.gif[/img] but now have two children that I thank God for every single day [img]smile.gif[/img] (remember only abstinance is 100% effective birth control..assuming healthy whole couples.)

My comments do not just apply to the hear and now Mark..they go waaaay back to the beginnings of the species.



[ 05-19-2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

The problem here isn't your idea Magik, but you are relating marriage and continuation of the Species too much.

You say that only heterosexual unions in marriage will produce children, but producing children is not exclusive to marriage, just as not only heterosexual couples wishing to have children get married.

If homosexuals are to be forbidden from marriage because it will not continue the species, it is only one step further in that direction to say that they should not be allowed whatsoever.

If it is ok for homosexuals to be couples, why deny them marriage?


P.S- Sorry, I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but I seem to remember you saying you weren't one of the strictly anti-homosexual people, but if I'm wrong then this post only applies to such people.

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: All exceptions to the vast majority of the rule AJ [img]smile.gif[/img] I didn't say it was right or fair...Im saying that it was the hetero union that allowed us to go from 2 humans to 6 Billion humans....no other comingling would have increased the likelyhood of survival and much much later increased the size of the tax base. Lets not get the Idea that magiK is a Homophobe or a Gay basher. Im just pointing out why things are the way they are. You can find an exception to nearly every rule if you look hard enough...but the vast majority will fit the rule.

I'm not sure why so many things come down to money with you Magik but the 1990 US census showed that the average income of a gay household was 24% greater than a heterosexual household. They pay far more tax and get far less for it.

Originally posted by Donut: I'm not sure why so many things come down to money with you Magik but the 1990 US census showed that the average income of a gay household was 24% greater than a heterosexual household. They pay far more tax and get far less for it.

Good statistic there Donut but incomplete... [img]smile.gif[/img] 250 million "straight" people with lesser incomes will balance out 50 million "gay" incomes...and I am being very generous as to the numbers of Gay people there are. AND those gay unions will NOT be increasing the population base nor will they be causing a growing "Voter" base...though they may adopt they usually do not reproduce and multiply (yeah I know there are exceptions to this rule too)

Quantity has a quality all its own.

And as for the personal remark about it being "Money" for me...All I was doing was pointing out some basic facts of life...so don't give me grief because numbers and or money and power play into it..I didn't design the world or its biology. I just play the hand nature or god or whoever deals.

[ 05-19-2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Further note, MagiK, without (hopefully) seeming like we're gangin up on you

You are reaching back a bit in the reality of history to justify a still-present prejudice in marriage and coupling. The relationship of marriage to procreation is very small these days. Especially considering a greater-than 50% divorce rate, teen pregnancy, other unwed pregnancy, en vitro fertilization, egg-freezing, couples choosing not to have children, increasing infertility, and high abortion rates.

If the real-world justification for a prejudice is gone, re-examine the prejudice, don't keep using a useless distinction to parrot the prejudice.

Besides, this is a far cry for justifying why a man/woman married couple can use each other's health benefits but a gay couple cannot. Remember, the one member of the gay couple who adopted a child would still have health benefits inure to the child.

On the religious side, marriage is sacred -- and we have agreed in the USA NOT to interfere in each other's free exercise of religion. On the practical legal side, the benefits that inure to married folks are about making society function properly and allowing people who choose to couple - a traditional human proclivity no matter their sexuality - some means of combining their efforts at attacking the game of life.

Well, if the *legal* benefits of "marriage" are about supporting the social and family structures that support society, why not recognize the social and family structures people are actually using in society???? There is nothing wrong with having the law reflect reality. (Though many senior attorneys laugh at me when I suggest that )