RE: OMG!

RE: OMG! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 4:14:57 PM)
The right to enter into Civil Contracts ( and "Marriage" at least in the Great State of New York is a CIVIL CONTRACT ) is a natural, unalienable one. G-d Bless the Fucking Declaration of Independence! Oh, and BY UCC LAW, in NYS, Civil Contracts are constructed without consideration of Gender. therefore, Marriage of any persons is legal. QED. NOW, if you could just get the fucking retards at the department of health to issue in accordance with the Law! I still suggest that people explore a LLC formation rather than a marriage.

Vendaval -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 4:28:41 PM)
General reply reagarding Sodomy Laws in the US, click on the link to view the interactive map - "Sodomy Laws in the United States" The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003. The majority opinion is based on privacy rights and is written by Kennedy, joined by Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stephens. O'Connor concurred on equal protection grounds. The Decision http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf The sodomy law map below is prior to Lawrence v. Texas. All states are now white, ie the sodomy laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable. However, some states still attempt to enforce their laws. See Virginia, Oklahoma, and North Carolina. The U.S. Military enforces its sodomy regulation without regard to Lawrence. 10 States and Puerto Rico with sodomy laws which applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals (On the map in black) Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Caroline, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia 4 states with sodomy laws which applied only to homosexuals (On the map in red) Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm (format edit)

GrizzlyBear -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 4:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Actually, homophobia is alive and well in Poland. "A senior Polish official has ordered psychologists to investigate whether the popular BBC TV show Teletubbies promotes a homosexual lifestyle. The spokesperson for children's rights in Poland, Ewa Sowinska, singled out Tinky Winky, the purple character with a triangular aerial on his head..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6698753.stm Just when you thought Falwell was dead... Say did he have an open casket? Anybody sure he's really in that grave?

farglebargle -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 4:30:14 PM)
quote: The U.S. Military enforces its sodomy regulation without regard to Lawrence. Geez, and they won't even hang a scumbag child-rapist....

Mercnbeth -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 4:41:45 PM)
quote: When this gets pointed out to these people, generally in court, their response is to start trying to pass a Constitutional amendment to inflict their religious beliefs on everybody else. I dont understand what the heck many Christians have against people being happy in a committed relationship with the one they love? It would take, or should take, a Constitutional amendment to change the current contractual definition of marriage. You were absolutely correct when you pointed out previously that this is more an economic issue than any other. Large Corporations offering spousal or partnership insurance and/or other S.O. benefits would be impacted. Consider that now, many people, especially senior citizens, "marry" out of convenience because one of them has "good" insurance and the other doesn't. Imagine how many would do so if gender was no longer a governing criteria. As amazing and unrelated as it may appear, the same sex marriage issue and national heath coverage are related issues. Get in a national health program and all corporations will cede their costs and benefits into the program and no longer give lobby money against same sex marriage. Pragmatically there is no "right" being withheld from the gay population. Currently they have the same rights as the heterosexuals, they can marry anyone that isn't the same gender. The request or change to be able to marry someone of the same sex, would be new "right". As such it should require a new civil definition of marriage either by legislation or the court. Ultimately, since on of the major benefits of marriage is the Federal Tax regulations, involvement of Congress and/or the Supreme Court will be necessary. Religion, liberal/conservative, love, have little to do with the issue beyond the emotions they generate. "Fair" usually means equal access and/or opportunity, persons within the gay community have the same equal access and opportunity to marry as do the heterosexuals. They just don't like that particular brand of fairness and view it as exclusionary. It is not, anymore than Mormons only being allowed one wife, not being able to marry your sibling or parent, or someone really into their dog beyond the emotions exhibited in "Old Yeller". Most of the time, economics are the primary reason for simple things not being so simple. I believe in my heart, "Old Yeller" aside, that people should be able to marry anyone they want and as many as they can afford. However on the issue of the "right" to marry someone of the same sex, that is a new right that has economic consequences. It is why it isn't as simple as our qualitative emotional response; "Sure - let gays marry each other. Why should only heterosexuals be miserable!"

Sinergy -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 4:49:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GrizzlyBear quote: ORIGINAL: Level Actually, homophobia is alive and well in Poland. "A senior Polish official has ordered psychologists to investigate whether the popular BBC TV show Teletubbies promotes a homosexual lifestyle. The spokesperson for children's rights in Poland, Ewa Sowinska, singled out Tinky Winky, the purple character with a triangular aerial on his head..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6698753.stm Just when you thought Falwell was dead... Say did he have an open casket? Anybody sure he's really in that grave? You never see Falwell and Tinky Winky at the same party. Im just sayin... Sinergy

dogthing -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 4:57:39 PM)
quote: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm So even a consensual heterosexual blow job in private between man and wife would have been criminal behaviour in some of those states right up until 2003?

Sinergy -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 4:59:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Pragmatically there is no "right" being withheld from the gay population. Currently they have the same rights as the heterosexuals, they can marry anyone that isn't the same gender. Please provide your source stating that marrying somebody of the different gender is a "right," whereas marrying somebody of the same gender is not. Happens to be normative, but that does not make it a "right." If there is a legal standard preventing it, why is the religious right up in arms trying to get a constitutional amendment passed? Because there is not, and the fact that Vermont and California and a few of the other progressive states want to provide same-sex marraiges offends the religious right. But the only way they can inflict their beliefs on us in California or Vermont or whatever state abides by same sex marraiges by popular vote is to change the Constitution. quote: Religion, liberal/conservative, love, have little to do with the issue beyond the emotions they generate. "Fair" usually means equal access and/or opportunity, persons within the gay community have the same equal access and opportunity to marry as do the heterosexuals. They just don't like that particular brand of fairness and view it as exclusionary. It is not, anymore than Mormons only being allowed one wife, not being able to marry your sibling or parent, or someone really into their dog beyond the emotions exhibited in "Old Yeller". Polygamy was made illegal when Utah wanted to join the United States, whose Christian-oriented Government refused to grant statehood to Utah unless the practice became illegal. Which is not to say that the practice is not alive and well in Utah (including many of my relatives) but technically it is illegal and has no state sanctioning. My involvement in the Mormon Church ended 2 generations before me, so dont blame me. quote: Most of the time, economics are the primary reason for simple things not being so simple. My point exactly. Thank you for your supporting it. Sinergy p.s. I have a picture on my wall of my great, great grandfather in prison in Utah for polygamy with all his polygamous buddies. On your point about being miserable, none of them look repentant or unhappy being behind bars.

MsPoetress -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 5:11:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You are aware that there are places in this country where being gay is as much as illegal.. that is what the sodomy laws are about. Yeah, sure, sodomy laws. Written right next to the law against tying your team of horses to the fire departments' steam engine... seriously, thanks for the laugh! Google it. It is illegal in Utah, and other states. Now this is only illegal if you are not married to the opposite sex. Whether it is inforced or not is another question.

dogthing -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 5:12:20 PM)
quote: Most of the time, economics are the primary reason for simple things not being so simple. But allowing same-sex marriage simplifies things. It means you only need one tickbox on official forms to say whether you are married or single. As soon as you start having different sorts of marriages that are "similar but different", all these companies are going to have to hire lots of lawyers to work out what the hell the legal differences are. Just make it the same for everyone. BTW, what happens if a married "hetero" couple finds out that one of them has a funny genetic condition and they have something other than the standard combination of XY or XX? What if they are XXY? Or the wife turns out to by XY with androgen insensitivity syndrome? Does the marriage get retrospectively annulled so she loses all her insurance and healthcare benefits?

Sinergy -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 5:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dogthing quote: Most of the time, economics are the primary reason for simple things not being so simple. But allowing same-sex marriage simplifies things. It means you only need one tickbox on official forms to say whether you are married or single. As soon as you start having different sorts of marriages that are "similar but different", all these companies are going to have to hire lots of lawyers to work out what the hell the legal differences are. Just make it the same for everyone. BTW, what happens if a married "hetero" couple finds out that one of them has a funny genetic condition and they have something other than the standard combination of XY or XX? What if they are XXY? Or the wife turns out to by XY with androgen insensitivity syndrome? Does the marriage get retrospectively annulled so she loses all her insurance and healthcare benefits? Because God (or whatever Diety du jour you go with) would not allow genetic abnormalities to get in the way of the sanctity of marraige. Sinergy

MsPoetress -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 5:17:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer BTW for those who are still behind the power curve of legal decissions already made. The US Supream Court struck down the anti gay sodomy laws in 2003, the case was Lawrence V Texas. There is no Sodomy law outlawing homosexuality in the US today that holds any force. For those behind the power curve of knowing why there are Gay Pride Parades I suggest you do a litle reading about the Stonewall Riots in NYC. They are the reason for the "Pride" Parades to begin with. Just my opinion but at 7 years old if your kid doesn't know what "gay" is (in age appropriate terms of course) then you are not doing your job. The existance of gay people isn't something you have to protect your child from any more than the existance of people of races and colors different than your own. ( You know mommy and I love each other? Well some men love men that same way and some women love women that way.) Wow that's gonna scar them for life now isn't it? sarcasm dripping (Salt Lake City, Utah) Utah lawmakers are refusing to remove a law banning sodomy for all but married opposite-sex couples even though the Supreme Court struck down similar laws in 2003. http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/03/030507sodomy.htm

Sinergy -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 5:18:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsPoetress (Salt Lake City, Utah) Utah lawmakers are refusing to remove a law banning sodomy for all but married opposite-sex couples even though the Supreme Court struck down similar laws in 2003. http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/03/030507sodomy.htm While this is true, appealing it to Federal court will get the charges dismissed. Of course, they cannot turn around and sue the State of Utah for the hundreds of thousands of dollars they had to spend to appeal it. Intolerance. Blech. Sinergy

Vendaval -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 5:22:34 PM)
Yes, have fun reading! http://www.answers.com/topic/sodomy quote: ORIGINAL: dogthing quote: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm So even a consensual heterosexual blow job in private between man and wife would have been criminal behaviour in some of those states right up until 2003?

Mercnbeth -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 5:36:26 PM)
quote: Please provide your source stating that marrying somebody of the different gender is a "right," whereas marrying somebody of the same gender is not. Gee, I don't know - perhaps when I went into the marriage license bureau to get mine and they said it was "right". It was also legal, and if beth were male it wouldn't be, in that building and for the purpose of a civil contract recognized by all jurisdictions it was "right". Feel free to try it. Heterosexual unions are normative? Are you making a value judgment that considers same sex unions un-normative. I don't see same sex unions as unnatural only currently illegal and in the minds of the government "wrong". quote: If there is a legal standard preventing it, why is the religious right up in arms trying to get a constitutional amendment passed? Don't know, you'd have to ask them, but trying to get a constitutional amendment passed and getting one isn't an indication of the necessity of a law. There was a constitutional amendment regarding flag burning - didn't happen. quote: Which is not to say that the practice is not alive and well in Utah (including many of my relatives) but technically it is illegal and has no state sanctioning. Terrific point and applied to same sex marriages it works the same way. Same sex partners can live together as can hetero poly families enjoying no fewer and no more rights than anyone else in the Country. However under the laws of that country they can only be married to someone of a different gender and only one. quote: I have a picture on my wall of my great, great grandfather in prison in Utah for polygamy with all his polygamous buddies. On your point about being miserable, none of them look repentant or unhappy being behind bars. And being married, it pained me to reference that old joke, living and being diametrically to "miserable". But anything for a cheap laugh...

Sinergy -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 5:41:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Please provide your source stating that marrying somebody of the different gender is a "right," whereas marrying somebody of the same gender is not. Gee, I don't know - perhaps when I went into the marriage license bureau to get mine and they said it was "right". It was also legal, and if beth were male it wouldn't be, in that building and for the purpose of a civil contract recognized by all jurisdictions it was "right". Feel free to try it. So they specifically told you that if beth was male they would not grant the license? quote: Heterosexual unions are normative? Are you making a value judgment that considers same sex unions un-normative. I don't see same sex unions as unnatural only currently illegal and in the minds of the government "wrong". You do understand what the word "normative" means, right? I am not making any sort of value judgement. quote: quote: If there is a legal standard preventing it, why is the religious right up in arms trying to get a constitutional amendment passed? Don't know, you'd have to ask them, but trying to get a constitutional amendment passed and getting one isn't an indication of the necessity of a law. There was a constitutional amendment regarding flag burning - didn't happen. My point was that there is a subset of the US population trying to get one passed. Not that I think it is likely to get passed. quote: But anything for a cheap laugh... True. Sinergy

Mercnbeth -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 6:33:33 PM)
quote: So they specifically told you that if beth was male they would not grant the license? Yes, in the same manner they said when I moved from NJ to CA that I'd need a new driver's license. quote: You do understand what the word "normative" means, right? I am not making any sort of value judgement. As a word it requires comparison. It was a word you used, with its origin being "normal". Do you understand its meaning:? Saying one thing is "normal" has the requirement of what it is being compared to being outside the definition. You called a hetero union normative. What, if not a hetero union, where you comparing it? Your "value" your "judgment" must have come into play for you to use the word. quote: My point was that there is a subset of the US population trying to get one passed. Not that I think it is likely to get passed. Why then is it germane? The question of "right" is not relative to what is trying to get passed or even what becomes law. The issue is one group having more or less "rights" than another. Referencing same sex marriage it is not the case. quote: quote: But anything for a cheap laugh... True. Some are cheaper than others. Appreciating you appreciating it. Then again there are others that take themselves so serious and lack the confidence to make a joke at their own expense. I avoid those people as much as possible.

earthycouple -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 6:41:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Just my opinion but at 7 years old if your kid doesn't know what "gay" is (in age appropriate terms of course) then you are not doing your job. The existance of gay people isn't something you have to protect your child from any more than the existance of people of races and colors different than your own. ( You know mommy and I love each other? Well some men love men that same way and some women love women that way.) Wow that's gonna scar them for life now isn't it? sarcasm dripping Damn straight. My UMs are learning acceptance of all as long as that "all" is not harming others (not to tolerant of murderers and rapists obviously). People with disabilities, people who are gay, people who cross dress, people of other races, ethnicities and religions....all deserve the same love, respect and benefits of every other human being.

dcnovice -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 6:44:37 PM)
quote: The issue is one group having more or less "rights" than another. My take on this as a gay man is that my straight siblings had the right to marry the people they love, but I do not.

Sinergy -> RE: OMG! (5/29/2007 6:47:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: You do understand what the word "normative" means, right? I am not making any sort of value judgement. As a word it requires comparison. It was a word you used, with its origin being "normal". Do you understand its meaning:? Saying one thing is "normal" has the requirement of what it is being compared to being outside the definition. You called a hetero union normative. What, if not a hetero union, where you comparing it? Your "value" your "judgment" must have come into play for you to use the word. Normative means something that is normal in a context. Homosexual unions are not "normative" in the United States at this time. A similar usage would be that it is normative to wear underwear. Exceptions exist, but it is not legally mandated. quote: quote: My point was that there is a subset of the US population trying to get one passed. Not that I think it is likely to get passed. Why then is it germane? The question of "right" is not relative to what is trying to get passed or even what becomes law. The issue is one group having more or less "rights" than another. Referencing same sex marriage it is not the case. I dont follow. Please clarify your point.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875