Übergeek 바둑이: Getting to your next post.... I never said anything about incest, just a brother and sister living together and wanting certain rights and responsibilities.....

again, to me this should be about people living together and making a commitment, and to be given certain rights because of this relationship...

But to me it is obvious that it is far more about being accepted as normal than it does with having the right to pass property etc

(V):  Maybe they decide not to have kids so then I guess it's ok with you.

Artful Dodger: Twister Their ability to reproduce has not gone.

" Maybe they decide not to have kids so then I guess it's ok with you."

I never said that.

Look, the basis of all western ignorance on sexuality is based on bad interpretation of the Bible and those who stand by them. Alot of the old laws in the Bible were to do with sexual acts in the temple. If we go by Genesis then isn't God both male and female??

Czuch:

>  again, to me this should be about people living together and making a commitment,
>  and to be given certain rights because of this relationship...
>  But to me it is obvious that it is far more about being accepted as normal than it does
>  with having the right to pass property etc

I think there is a danger of falling prey to semantics.  Is a "civil union" that different from a "marriage"?  Those who want "marriage" strictly will tell you that calling it a "civil union" is discriminatory.  I think the issue would be resolved if all those 1138 statutes related to "marriage" were ammended to "marriage, civil union or whatever you want to call it".  Then regarless of what terminology we use, homosexual couples would have the same rights.  Asking to ammend 1138 statutes is a stretch when lawmakers can't even bring theselves to ammend 1 without being at each other's throats.

At some point we have to balance everyone's needs.  I think it is impossible to make everyone happy on the issue.  There will be people who vehemently oppose "homosexual marriage" and there are those who will never accept anything short of fully equal rights and semantics for homosexuals.  The government could completely remove itself from the issue.  Call everything a "civil union" for legal terms, and have people call it a marriage in their private lives if they chose to do so.  That would make  lot of people unhappy too.  I think it is one of those issues we might never be able to resolve.

Übergeek 바둑이: The government could completely remove itself from the issue. Call everything a "civil union" for legal terms, and have people call it a marriage in their private lives if they chose to do so. That would make lot of people unhappy too.



Why would that make anyone unhappy?

But again... why would it have to be a legal commitment between only two people, or only no related people?

(V): You will never convince me that a man doing it to another man in his anus is a normal and natural attraction

The reason nature makes us hard wired to be attracted to the opposite sex is to propagate our species... because of the advancement of our brains, we are able to do more that what we are hard wired for(IE have sex for pleasure purposes only), but if you are hard wired to be attracted to the same sex, that is not the normal condition as nature meant it to be (notice I did not say "how God meant it to be") To me it is no more normal than if you are hard wired to be sexually attracted to small children, it is a natural abnormality, and taken to the extreme, our species would die if this would happen more often than it does!

(V):   I didn't think you could come up with an example.  Proves you were wrong and I am right. 

Artful Dodger: so what is different LOL

GET A FRIGGIN LIFE & STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS.  MY BROTHER IS GAY & I AM SICK & TIRED OF THE DAMN RIGHT WING GARBAGE.  I MAKE A REASONABLE ARGUMENT & 24 HOURS LATER, I COME BACK TO 40 POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT.  MOST OF THEM ABSURD.  GEEEZZZEE!!!

Ferris Bueller: I dont give a crap about your bedroom, and it id obvious that it is much more than "right wing garbage" when 30 states have held elections against "gay marriage".

I have a close personal friend who voted against gay marriage and her brother is gay.

I believe that there should be rights and protections given, the same ones marriage provides, for committed couples in loving relationships.... lets put the shoe on the other foot for a minute..... gays want to get married, but what about someone like myself that doesnt want to get married???? I am in a committed loving relationship, why should I have to get married to enjoy the benefits and protections that marriages allow?

You tell us to stay out of your bedroom, but it is you who shoves the bedroom in our faces! Gay and homosexual refers to nothing but the bedroom, they are words that only describe your sexual(IE bedroom) preference... so when you say you want "gay marriage" you are saying you want to get married based on what you do in the bedroom!!!!

You may call it absurd, but that does not make it so, explain why it is absurd to say that being attracted to the same sex is a quirk in nature?

Czuch: Ok.. I'll never convince you. But that does not mean that gay folk have to have their lives intruded on by your own prejudice.

Artful Dodger: You didn't come up with anything anyway, just a C&P from a right wing site that compares same blood sex to same sex sex. They are not the same.

If you want to forget that a man and women can have children and then work out they are gay.. by all means. If you want forget that love is not an animal thing .. by all means.

And btw... "As communities we all live within the parameters of the standards set by the State."

ahhh you like the state now just because it supports your views. So be it.. but be honest and say so.

Czuch: Because it's your the law. If you find it wrong, then do as many people do and get the law changed. duhhhhh

""gay marriage"" No just marriage.

(V): Point is, in fact my girlfriend and I can enjoy most of the protections etc. that married folks enjoy, we can leave property to each other and have visitation in hospital etc.... I am not sure what gay couples cant get through other means than marriage anyway?

(V): But that does not mean that gay folk have to have their lives intruded on by your own prejudice.


Explain to me how I have intruded on any ones life, with prejudice or otherwise?

Because I have voted against changing the definition of marriage?

Because I believe that hard wired sexual attraction to someone else of the same sex is abnormal in nature?

Czuch: equality...

ok... reverse the situation. gay is normal and hetro is fighting for equality.

Justify yourself.

(V): You cant do that.... thats the whole point! It is impossible for "gay" to be normal in nature, since it is impossible to propagate your species.

Lets say for example that you are right though.... gay people propagate the species and heterosexuals dont....
I am heterosexual, I am in the minority by a long shot, my tact is to forget the sex label and to fight it as I have said before, as equal rights for a caring couple, and not based on who I have sex with!

My situation right now is no different from a gay couples.... I am not married, (except that I choose not to be) But I am in a loving and committed relationship, and I want the same legal protections that married folks have!

Thing is, I am fighting for equal rights without getting married, and gays want equal rights to be able to marry.... we should simply get together and have equal rights without getting married!

From what I see , Gays are fighting for the right to be like heterosexuals, but what they(we non married folk) should be fighting for together, are the same rights without being married!


Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!

Tuesday: Having sex outside of marriage is just as "abnormal" as being gay.

Really???? I am not using a religious argument..... in nature there is really no such thing as marriage, all other species have sex outside of marriage, so in nature, it is not abnormal to have sex outside of marriage.

Artful Dodger: Not really.... there are tax and other issues where single couples cannot compete with married ones.

However, there are many legal estate planning measures that do help give single couples, including gay ones, the same protections as married couple enjoy, it just takes a little bit of foresight and time!

Tuesday: BTW we are above the other species right?

I thought you might be being factitious...

Because of the advancement in our brains, yes we are above other species.... and that does make us unique in nature, and in that regard it is somewhat like comparing apples to oranges when you try to talk about humans and other parts of nature.

Tuesday: I dont know for sure, except that for me it seems more like I am hard wired to be attracted to women, not men, and I know gay people say the same about themselves.

I also know that nature has evolved us to be attracted to the opposite sex so we will propagate our species.... I dont know, maybe being gay is just another step forward in our evolution, and we are to evolve into a being that doesnt require sex to propagate our species, in which case, all of us still hard wired to be heterosexuals are someday going to be the abnormal ones.... EW! making babies by having intercourse with the opposite sex, how disgusting!

Tuesday: I understand that gays are hard wired that way, and that they wonder how someone could be attracted to the opposite sex in the same way we (heterosexuals) do not understand how anyone could be attracted to the same sex.....


But now talk about someone being hard wired to be attracted to children, everyone thinks that is abnormal and against what nature intended, (except for ubergeek, who seems to only have an issue with the consent issue) That is a clear example where nature has messed up, and it is not a hard leap to feel the same about being hard wired attracted to the same sex either

Czuch:
>  Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!
 and


Artful Dodger:

>  You already do have equal rights tho.

First, if marriage is just a label, then it should not matter what the union is called: marriage, civil union, common-law marriage, shacking up together, etc.  The problem is not just using marriage as a word, but rather how the law is structured.

Unfortunately, in most countries there are many laws that relate specifically to marriage (in the US there are 1138 statutes).  In some countries marriages require registration and documentation, while other countries accept "common law" marriages which are defined as people cohabiting in the same residence or owning property together.

In the United States not all states recognize common-law (or similar) marriages.  For that reason not all states give equal rights to unmarried couples living together.

Of course, as we all know, there is opposition to allowing a change in the legal definition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry.  The opposition comes from a confusion between the legal definition of marriage and how individuals define marriage outside of the legal context.

Since people cannot separate their own concept of marriage from the definition in the law, they insist in keeping the legal definition as a union between a man and a woman.  The perception is that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, then somehow heterosexual marriage is diminished or reduced in meaning.

There was a time when it was impossible for people to marry outside of the church.  If people were not married by some member of the clergy, then their marriages were not legal.  Civil marriages (those outside the church) took a long time to be recognized and became acceptable as the separation of the church and the state became the norm in many countries around the world.  As it is, the law discriminates against homosexuals, and in some states against unmarried couples living together. Those remnants of prejudice and iscrimination will take a long time to overcome because as individuals we impose our own morality on the law, and western Judeo-Christian morality still sees homosexuality as an abnormal, unnatural taboo.  The process of accepting homosexual marriage will be as long as accepting marriage outside the church.

Übergeek 바둑이: As it is, the law discriminates against homosexuals, and in some states against unmarried couples living together.

But, isnt there some merit to the argument that the states have a right to promote certain lifestyles that they believe will benefit them? If I have a good job and a healthy life style and have 5 children who grow up with a good education and these children end up productive, tax paying members in my state, then that is a good thing, as far as my state is concerned.

States already give tax incentives and other benefits to certain businesses that they want to attract to do business in that state. The state does not have to give the same incentives to a business they do not want. I might want a wind farm company in my state, but not a tobacco company, so I give incentives to the wind company to come here.

Well, they have the same right to promote families the way they want to as well. They give certain incentives for families that meet the criteria they want to promote, and those that dont meet that criteria, they dont give those incentives.

Gay couples cannot have 5 children to add to the tax revenues for the state.... single parent families are traditionally not as stable, and therefore less likely to produce productive tax paying members of society...

The state isnt discriminating against gay families etc, as much as they are simply giving extra reward and incentives for what they think will benefit the state more!

So to the state, gay families are akin to a tobacco company, and traditional families are like the wind farm

Übergeek 바둑이: Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!


I am with you..... but I cannot sit here and say, that as an unmarried couple, we are discriminated against by the state

Another example.... the state gives out tax credits etc. if I do energy efficient upgrades to my home. Is it discrimination because someone who doesnt meet these criteria dont get the same tax benefits????

Artful Dodger: Easy dude... read what I have written.... the only thing I ever said is that I have a right to fight for more rights... I also said that it was not discrimination to deny me those rights, and i also said that things are not always equal, nor do they need to be, and that a state has the right (with permission from its voters) to do whatever they believe is in their best interest!


I also never wanted anything just by living with someone, there has to be some form of intent and contract involved.


Question... do you believe that I should not be able to legally set up assurances that my girlfriend will inherit and any other rights I want to infer (or whatever the word should be) upon her?

Artful Dodger: Really... what are you doing for the state, as a married person, that I am not doing as an unmarried person? You pay them a fee for a license, thats one. What else? Its not like it is against the law for you to get a divorce. What does the state get in exchange for your marriage vows? Have you promised to raise x amount of children? Tell me the advantage the state gets in exchange for your tax breaks and other benefits?

Artful Dodger: Yes we have a will and other legal means to make up for a lot of things... there are a few sticky issues still, like inheritance tax and gifting money come to mind.... but except for the time and expense in drawing up legal documents, we can basically get most what we want done, as can gay unmarried couples!

Artful Dodger: I think ubergeek said it already, but there is a portion of the gay marriage movement that is less interested in rights as they are in just making homosexuality more legitimate, and they are interested in all the semantics as well as changing the definition of marriage and the trimmings that would go with that.

Czuch: Equal rights is all most minorities ask for. Ok... you get fringe groups asking to be special, but as a rule. Ignore them. The high majority just want to be treated the same.

And I agree.. common law man and wife ought to have the same rights as married couples. But a certain minimal length of being together has to be in place to stop tax and other fraud.

Übergeek 바둑이: Not true. Some do, some don't. there has been quite a debate within the Anglican church over being gay and the roles as such within the church.

Judaism does not condemn gay orientation, and depending on the persons views does not condemn homosexual acts. Lesbian acts are not condemned by the Torah at all.

As for "heterosexual marriage is diminished or reduced in meaning."... a documentary blamed much on the pill and that this contraceptive method made 'men' less secure.

Artful Dodger: Well, you dont have to be married to get a tax deduction for kids under 18.... What exactly is the reason the state gives rights and breaks to marrieds anyway?

(V): Well, I can marry a woman who is not even a legal resident, even if I never met her before, and tomorrow she is legal and we have all the rights and benefits of marriage, and we can get divorced anytime we want to as well....

Czuch: I know... old laws that are so messed up and ignorant of today's real world. In some respects our laws are still very Victorian in nature.

Marriage in general does not mean what it use to, especially when considering today's divorce rates.

Artful Dodger: One that i know of is that we own a couple of property together, but the tax breaks we can get from the taxes and insurance on the mortgages is not the same for us now as if we were married???

Czuch:
> Gay couples cannot have 5 children to add to the tax revenues for the
state.... single parent families are
> traditionally not as stable, and
therefore less likely to produce productive tax paying members of
society...
> The state isnt discriminating against gay families
etc, as much as they are simply giving extra reward and incentives
> for
what they think will benefit the state more!

This argument is weak.  In North America and Europe approximately 25% of all couple experience problems conceiving children, and as many as 10% of all couples will not have children in spite of all the reproductive technologies available today.  A combination of environmental and social factors has left many couples childless.  Should their "marriages" be called "civil unions" because they cannot conceive a child and should they lose all rights that married couples have?

As for single parent families, that is an entirely different problem.  Marriages fail, and some individuals never assume responsibility for their children.  My mother was a single mother (my father died when I was 6).  All three of her children went to university.  I am a scientist, my brother is a business executive and my sister is a professional artist.  Are we less productive tax payers?  Some single parent families have serious problems, and other succeed.  This argument was weak also.

The bottom line is:  heterosexuals don't want the concept of "marriage" to be "tarnished" by allowing homosexuals to be able to use the term "marriage" when referring to their committed relationships.  The govenment does not want to allow it for two reasons: to make those I just mentioned happy, and to avoid the extra expense of giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.  As always, it boils down to money and politics.

Artful Dodger:

>  When is the cutoff?  You date a girl named Jane for a week and then move in with her.  You live together for a month ... etc.  

Depending on where you live, the law defines common law marriages, domestic relationships, etc.  In many places the law is clear.  For example, in Canada the definition is clear:

a) the couple have been living in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months;

b) the couple are parents of a child by birth or adoption; or

c) one of the couple has custody and control of the child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and the child is wholly dependent on that person for support.

Some provinces also include a further definition such as both partners owning together property or financial assets.

In the United States 11 states and the District of Columbia recognize common law marriages.  26 states recognized common law marriages in the past but no longer recognize them.  13 states never recognized common law marriages.  The definition varies from state to state, and often under different conditions for different states.

So it is more than a matter of just "shacking up together".  Legally speaking a couple can find themselves receiving all benefits of married couples in one state while in other states they would not.  Earlier I said that in some cases common law couple can find themselves discriminated by the law.  By this I mean that not all couples are treated equally.

(V):
> Not true. Some do, some don't. there has been quite a debate within the
Anglican church over being gay and the roles as such within the church.

> Judaism does not condemn gay orientation, and depending on the
persons views does not condemn homosexual acts. Lesbian acts are not
condemned by the Torah at all.

All I will say is that acceptance of homosexuals by the church (or religious organizations, to be more general) is a very new concept.  If we go back 25 years most churches rejected homosexuals and it would have been inconceivable for a homosexual to become a member of the clergy.  The same was true of women in many religions.  Equal rights for women and homosexuals is a relatively new concept.

The Old Testament (what we call the Pentateuch, or more correctly, the Torah) has examples of condemnation of homosexuality.  The most clear example is in Leviticus (called Vayikra in Hebrew).  It is from these 5 books of the Bible that the Judeo-Christian taboo of male homosexuality arose.  The Old Testament makes little mention of female homosexuality, but in the New Testament the Book of Romans condemns lesbianism.

The Judeo-Christian religions are changing.  Modern interpretations do not take a literal view of the Bible any more, and the rights of women and homosexuals are being recognized, not by all churches, but at least by the more progressive ones.

Übergeek 바둑이: The OT has many laws that have been interpreted as laws on homosexuality. Many law interpretations based on the idea that God is purely male.. though it is clear when you read Jewish concepts that God is only male in regards to our relation with God, ie God the Father.

Certain texts are against rape of men by men as happened in Sodom, certain texts are to keep reminding the early Jews against being like the Canaanites. The laws on homosexuality some deem are purely on rape and temple based prostitution, and in some respects based on that man's seed was how babies came into being as at that time the female egg was not known.

How much comes from other religions is vague. It is to remembered that Moses learnt much from the Egyptians (see Corpus Hermeticum) .

As to NT texts, again interpretation is a problem. I would again say (based on OT) that the condemnations were on hetro people abusing same sex ie rape.

As to being modern interpretations... I cannot agree, so much we've lost from the early days through the killings and burnings during the formation of the Roman church.

Ferris Bueller: You keep saying that we are interfering with personal lives, but the issue is, if it is such a personal thing, then why make a big stink about not being included in such a public thing as marriage?????

Ferris Bueller: Well.. it is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. And this week our government face quite a kick up the butt over the principle that independent advisers do have the right to have a view. They are facing a possibility of a major walk out by various expert independent groups.

Ahhhh on a survey of 27 countries around the world by the BBC only 11% were happy with the way capitalism is at the mo. the majority by far feel we need more regulation and reform.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8347409.stm