Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: OMG!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: OMG! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OMG! - 5/29/2007 6:57:39 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

I dont follow.  Please clarify your point.
One groups desires or attempt to change a law doesn't qualify it as a argument. I don't disagree with the concept of same sex marriage but I see it for what it is - economic. The law is not arbitrary when it comes to gender. It provides the same rights to both. I fail to see why having one opinion excludes the other.

quote:

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.

Love is not considered in the law or distinguished for gender. Define "love" constitutionally and you'll have equal opportunity. The same effort will be required to eliminate the gender reference and I see that one being more likely to succeed. In fact, I'd vote in favor of any legislation.

This is not an issue of "right" or "fair" as a matter of law today gays and heteros have the same rights. That is my only point.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: OMG! - 5/29/2007 7:23:38 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

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.




Nothing is seemingly more American than  The Right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. What could be more fundamental to this right than being able to consensually decide whom one wants to spend the rest of their life with and enter into a marriage contract with and raise their children with...  We are talking consenting adults after all.

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 5/29/2007 7:24:23 PM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: OMG! - 5/29/2007 7:26:27 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


quote:

I dont follow.  Please clarify your point.
One groups desires or attempt to change a law doesn't qualify it as a argument. I don't disagree with the concept of same sex marriage but I see it for what it is - economic. The law is not arbitrary when it comes to gender. It provides the same rights to both. I fail to see why having one opinion excludes the other.

quote:

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.

Love is not considered in the law or distinguished for gender. Define "love" constitutionally and you'll have equal opportunity. The same effort will be required to eliminate the gender reference and I see that one being more likely to succeed. In fact, I'd vote in favor of any legislation.

This is not an issue of "right" or "fair" as a matter of law today gays and heteros have the same rights. That is my only point.


So you support State-sponsored unions of marraige by both same sex and opposite sex couples, and agree that the people in those unions are entitled to the same economic benefits.

Thank you for clarifying.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: OMG! - 5/29/2007 8:29:44 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Love is not considered in the law or distinguished for gender. Define "love" constitutionally and you'll have equal opportunity. The same effort will be required to eliminate the gender reference and I see that one being more likely to succeed. In fact, I'd vote in favor of any legislation.


You've lost me here, Merc.

quote:

This is not an issue of "right" or "fair" as a matter of law today gays and heteros have the same rights. That is my only point.


I beg to differ. Two consenting heteros have the right, in all 50 states, to get married. Two consenting gay people do not. That strikes me as a fairly big difference in their rights.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: OMG! - 5/29/2007 9:20:07 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		I'm sure I mearly missed the suggestion I have supported since the begining of this issue of "Gay Marriage".

Get the state out of the marriage business entirely.
Have the states issue Civil Union liscences to everyone equally
Have all Government documents edited to reflect the change
Let the people and churches involved decide for themselves who is "married" and who is not in their eyes.
I'm only worried about the eyes of the law being equal.

Best solution I have ever seen.

Oh and instead of cities and counties protesting gay marriage bans by breaking the law, have the=ose officials who want to protest, simply stop issueing liscences at all to anyone. Let the people be inconvienienced a little bit and they might see the problem a bit differently.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: OMG! - 5/29/2007 9:37:18 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		Marriage is the basic formation of the smallest economic unit, the family. Every culture has it, every religion, every country. It has nothing to do with religion. For the religious right to insist that is does is just plain ignorant. For anyone to assert that marriage is not the domain of government because it is a religious institution does not understand what marriage really is, which is the primary economic unit holding society together.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: OMG! - 5/29/2007 10:47:57 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

So you support State-sponsored unions of marriage by both same sex and opposite sex couples, and agree that the people in those unions are entitled to the same economic benefits
Never said I didn't but it was fun to see you assume I did. I only stated the obvious and the pragmatic. As a matter of law there is no prejudice against same sex marriage in the current statutes. My opinion is that any law prohibiting personal right to choice is a bad law, from smoking to same sex, although I do neither; at least not yet.
quote:

 
I beg to differ. Two consenting heteros have the right, in all 50 states, to get married. Two consenting gay people do not. That strikes me as a fairly big difference in their rights.
DC, You have to see that as far as the law is concerned there is no such thing as hetero or homo; there is only male/female. Admittedly that fact creates a problem but as a matter of law all that matters is that a person, whether they identify themselves as either heterosexual or homosexual have the same rights. Currently they do.

Now you could and should argue that any expansion of the right to marry a same sex partner would expand the rights of both heterosexuals and homosexuals however that pointed logic gets you back into the area of economics. My opinion, which started the current hijacking path, was that the religious and society aspects of this debate are smokescreens for the actual reason - money. Those understanding the cost of a law expanding the definition of marriage to same sex partners put money in the hands of any group that keeps the fire burning to create more smoke.

All those things that should be appropriate for any two people to marry such as love, commitment, compatibility, and common desire, are the weakest arguments for or against this issue and as relevant as religion. As bankrupt as the SS treasury is, the actuarial tables providing the current bankruptcy projections will need to be accelerated if SSI and aide to surviving dependent were expanded to same sex unions. I'll try to put it in two sentences.

The legal battle is difficult because it is seeking to grant a "more equal" status for a minority.

The legal battle will be bogged down because there is a lot of money to be moved in the event same sex relationships are recognized at the Federal level.

DC, I hope to see the day it is not the case, but it is reality. Battling this issue on a religious basis is pointless.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: OMG! - 5/30/2007 2:02:44 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		In comparison to Eastern Europe, homophobia in the West is not on the same level, but it does exist. In the West, people have been relatively free to form movements aimed at improving human rights and had varying levels of success. In other parts of the world, people have suffered from greater levels of oppression.

The problem is that the tiny minority (in Britain, anyway) who back discrimination against gays and lesbians have a disproportionate impact because of their status in society.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 68
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: OMG! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.063