Sometimes it's not about "freedom of speech," but about freedom

[BT]

It would make sense to make civil unions that would bestow all the features of marriage legal to same sex couples. I would support this.It is a compromise, and a fair one.

Bingo

[kimba1]

civil union can possibly never happen
you see it`s not just for homosexuals
it can be used for people with children out of wedlock and still don`t want to marry each other.
it`s a way to get the legal benefits of marraige without being stuck with somebody you don`t care for.
church groups will never want civil unions to happens
but thier one folly is that they are so focused on the gay aspect that they may not be able to stop heterosexual civil unions.

[BT]

One would think that if a civil union didn't work out the union would have to be dissolved just like a divorce with division of property and support issues. I don't see why a hetero would opt for a union if the were adverse to marriage.

[Brassmask]

They can......it's called a Civil Union

Oh yeah, that's right!  What were those african-americans complaining about back in the '60's then?  They had their own equal water fountains, entrances to establishments and seats on the buses!

They were called "Blacks Only" but they were equally full of water, their entrances allowed them access to the establishment and their seats allowed them to sit on the bus just like the seats in the front!

They were equal under the law!

What's with these complaining gays?  They get to enter into a contract with a person and have the same rights to property, insurance, visitation and so forth as a man and woman who are married.  What's the diff?

Right, sirs?

Are you a participant in a civil union?

[sirs]

They can......it's called a Civil Union

Oh yeah, that's right!  What were those african-americans complaining about back in the '60's then?  

Get back to me when you actually have a valid comparison.  The nonsense of trying to compare the drive to redefine marriage as anyone marrying anything to the Civil Rights movement, and blacks unable to drink from the same fountain or sit anywhere on a bus, is beyond intellectually dishonest

[Michael Tee]

<<Your issue is the supposed emotionally attached stigma of civil union, as if that's some lesser scenario than marriage.  What makes it lesser?....because you say so?? >>

That is a good question but in fact I have already answered it.  What gives it a lesser status is the fact that the law of the land creates the status and separates it from marriage.  They are now LEGALLY SEPARATED from a status and a package of rights that all other citizens are able to enjoy.  The Supreme Court of the U.S.A. in a UNANIMOUS decision found that separation by law in itself creates an inferior status, notwithstanding the intent of the law to give fully equal or equivalent rights to the group that is separated out.  As I said in an earlier post, which really answered this question, it is not because I or Jerry Falwell or Dick Cheney or Bill Maher says that the status is inferior - - that is just personal opinion and every individual in the country will always have the right to pronounce a personal opinion.  But when the  law of the land says, Adam and Steve don't have the right to a legal status that Brad and Angelina can claim, then Adam and Steve can rightly claim that they are discriminated against.  If the law then says, Oh but wait we have created this civil union status just for you and all the rights you can claim under civil union are the equivalent to what Brad and Angelina claim under marriage, , then Adam and Steve can justifiably ask, In that case, why not give us the married status and cut the bullshit?  The only response to that question is, Because you are not entitled to marry.  But Brad and Angelina are.  Which of course is an obvious slap at Adam and Steve, not coming from Falwell, Cheney or anyone else (which they'd just have to live with) but from the laws of their own country which (a) violate the equal rights provisions of the Constitution and (b) which they don't have to live with.

<<The fact that you continue to refuse that FACT (that you even conceded in your 1st paragrapgh)>>

I think that was an unfortunate choice of words on my part.  Probably would have been better to say equivalent rights rather than equal rights.  What you so obstinately refuse to recognize is the decision of your own Supreme Court that when the law separates citizens into two classes and purports to assign equal rights to each class, the mere fact of separating them into two classes (white and colored, gay and straight) precludes the rights granted to the separated class from ever being equal.  You have a HUGE problem - - your own Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY says that segregation by race inevitably creates a stigma such that the rights granted as equal can never actually overcome the stigma of the separation so that the rights really are equal.

<<demonstrates for all to witness that this issue has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with imposing some moral superior view (which you've already acknowledged how you know better) upon those obviously delusional backward thinking hicks who refuse to accept how normal it is for men to love men. >>

You are very confused.  First because nobody is claiming it is normal for men to love men.  I don't claim it and I don't know anybody else who claims it.  I've already stated this in a preceding post in this thread, so I really don't know why you keep returning to this absurd allegation that I or anyone else thinks it's normal for men to love men.  Secondly, and I've also made this clear in my other posts in this thread, while it is obvious that I and any normal, reasonably well-educated 12-year old know better than Bible-thumping hicks who think the earth is 6,000 years old, I have never expressed a desire to impose any kind of moral superiority on them.  They have the inalienable right to believe whatever stupidity they choose, and to live their lives according to their moronic conception of good living.  What they DON'T have is the right to impose their hillbilly ideas on others, specifically to deny a constitutional right to Adam and Steve which all heteros already enjoy.

<<Your view of religion, not withstanding, the FACT still remains that people can NOT chose their race or gender.  There is NO FACT to vaildate some inability to chose one's sexual desires & preferences. >>

So every talk-show gay guy I've ever seen who claims he struggled for years against his impulses, got help, counselling, etc. is not telling me any facts, but just a pack of lies?  And how do you know this?  Every magazine article about that same struggle is also just a pack of lies?  How do you know that?  I'd say I've read plenty of facts that lead me to believe the guy can't help it, didn't want it and didn't choose it.  Unless you were living in a cave for the past thirty years, you must have heard and read the same stuff.  But being the right-wing freaker you are, you just can't face facts you don't like, so you have to deny everything these guys say.  It's all a lie.  There is NO FACT . . .  Bullshit, there are tens of thousands of them, and you've been exposed to them yourself.  You just choose to wash them away somewhere where they won't conflict with your cherished right-wing delusions.

<<And Civil Unions provide Homosexual couples equal rights under the law, as married couples.  Simple as that>>

Obviously they don't, because they can't have equal rights and be stigmatized as unworthy of marriage rights at the same time.  Otherwise, the Supreme Court would have decided Brown v. Topeka as follows:  Give 'em equal rights.  Spend whatever it takes for black schools to catch up to white schools and then after that spend equal amounts per pupil in both systems.  But that didn't happen.  Because the Court said, If it is separate, it cannot be equal.  So don't bother arguing this with me, sirs - - argue it with the Supreme Court.

As a final example of the unreality in which the right wing operates, as others have pointed out in this thread, civil unions are a non-starter.  THEY ARE OUTLAWED in numerous state constitutions and presumably with the approval of a majority of the population of the states concerned.  (Unless you want to argue that the citizens of those states do NOT live in a democracy.)  There is no way in hell that any states, particularly the racist, bigoted, gay-hating moron states of the American south, are going to approve of civil unions.  This is just another deluded fantasy of the racists and fascists who hate gays, are determined to deny them equal rights, and nevertheless wish to appear as humane and enlightened.  Wake up guys.  Open your eyes to the REAL WORLD.  There ARE NO CIVIL UNIONS.  Get it?  None.  Zero.  Zip.

[sirs]

<<Your issue is the supposed emotionally attached stigma of civil union, as if that's some lesser scenario than marriage.  What makes it lesser?....because you say so?? >>

That is a good question but in fact I have already answered it.  What gives it a lesser status is the fact that the law of the land creates the status and separates it from marriage.  

Because Marriage is that between a man and a woman.  That's why they're seperated, from a definition stand point, while the act of Civil Unions provides EQUAL RIGHTS under the law.  2 COMPLETELY SEPERATE ISSUES.   OY       Doesn't make it lesser, simply makes it different than that of marriage, only "lesser" to folks like you.  The fact that you want to redefine marriage, in order to perpeuate the ideological notion that homosexuality is perfectly normal, is as transparent as AlQeada's torture manual, and zip to do with actual rights involved

<<The fact that you continue to refuse that FACT (that you even conceded in your 1st paragrapgh)>>

I think that was an unfortunate choice of words on my part.  Probably would have been better to say equivalent rights rather than equal rights.  What you so obstinately refuse to recognize is the decision of your own Supreme Court that when the law separates citizens into two classes....

No one is seperating anyone into any class.  that'd only be you...setting up false premise after false premise, then demonstrating how the premice is wrong, ignoring the fact the premise was never accurate to begin with.  It's done all the time regarding Bush's imminent threat & mission accomplished diatribes.  Since under the law, such couples would be given equal rights demonstrates the folly of your position again, and again, and again, and again

and purports to assign equal rights to each class, the mere fact of separating them into two classes (white and colored, gay and straight)

And stiill again with the false analogy.  One that has NO choice (skin pigment), and the other who have complete choice (who they want to have sex with today), as far as I'm concerned, and until you actually have some FACTS to refute it, will remian precisely that

<<demonstrates for all to witness that this issue has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with imposing some moral superior view (which you've already acknowledged how you know better) upon those obviously delusional backward thinking hicks who refuse to accept how normal it is for men to love men. >>

You are very confused. 

Not at all.  EQUAL RIGHTS is the claim, when it's the redefinition of marriage as the primary goal, rights be damned.  The latter then obligating the majority of the nation to disregard the teachings of their faith, because now the official definition of marriage is what Tee says its going to be.  You know, it's funny this stigma you are really hanging your hat on, when trying to lay claim that such equal rights wouldn't be achieved with Civil Unions, when the logical repercussion is the stigma placed on the majority of religious folks, when confronted with others saying "look, the law says marriage can between anyone now, na na nana na", facilitating a stigma upon them as if they've been wrong all these centuries

<<Your view of religion, not withstanding, the FACT still remains that people can NOT chose their race or gender.  There is NO FACT to vaildate some inability to chose one's sexual desires & preferences. >>

So every talk-show gay guy I've ever seen who claims he struggled for years against his impulses, got help, counselling, etc. is not telling me any facts, but just a pack of lies?  

Probably not, just having difficulty with the sexual urges that most folks have issus wth.  Most like the opposite sex, but some like the same sex, some like married women, some like children, some like animals, etc.  Get back to me when you're ready normalize Adultery and Pedophilia, with some new redefinitions

[Michael Tee]

<<Because Marriage is that between a man and a woman.  That's why they're seperated, from a definition stand point, while the act of Civil Unions provides EQUAL RIGHTS under the law. >>

Perfect example of circular reasoning.  Marriage is between man and woman because the law defines it as such.  Caligula (a Roman Emperor) married his fucking horse. The law can make marriage anything it wants to make it, man-woman, man-horse or man-man and woman-woman.  If the law previously made marriage man-woman, that's not to say that if it is unconstitutional it can't be changed by a new law or struck down by a court.                                               

<<The fact that you want to redefine marriage, in order to perpeuate the ideological notion that homosexuality is perfectly normal, is [transparent] and zip to do with actual rights involved>>

Nobody claims homosexuality is normal.  That's a straw man you keep using no matter how many times I will say flat out that homosexuality is NOT normal.  Marriage would not be redefined, it would simply be broadened - - the same definition would now apply to more marriages than it previously took in.

<<No one is seperating anyone into any class. >>

Of course they are - - the class of gay Americans who can't marry but might one day (no time soon, for sure) be allowed to have civil unions, and the class of straight Americans whose marriages are recognized as marriages by the law of the land.

<<And stiill again with the false analogy.  One that has NO choice (skin pigment), and the other who have complete choice (who they want to have sex with today), as far as I'm concerned, and until you actually have some FACTS to refute it, will remian precisely that>>

Even if you were correct in saying that gay people have chosen to be gay (and I see no evidence at all that they have) your reasoning makes no sense at all.  What you are really saying is that no one who chooses an identity can be legally discriminated against, since he can always choose to enter or leave the identity he or she has chosen.  So if my neighbour converts to Judaism and then a law is passed that all Christians who have converted to the Jewish religion must perform two years of community service, there is no discrimination against Christian converts to Judaism because just like the neighbour chose to be Jewish, she can choose herself right back into Christianity and escape the discrimination.  I don't buy it.

If Adam CHOOSES to marry Steve, it's none of the state's fucking business and if he's forbidden a marriage licence, or the preacher is gonna be penalized at law for performing the ceremony, you argue that since Adam can always dump Steve and tale Marianne, that Adam's rights are not infringed?  That is bullshit, he didn't get his first choice and had to settle for Marianne - - the evil state has dictated how Adam should live his personal life; he can't marry Steve.

<<EQUAL RIGHTS is the claim, when it's the redefinition of marriage as the primary goal, rights be damned. >>

YOU are the only one postulating this as the redefinition of marriage.  Marriage would retain the exact same definition it always had, except that now more folks would be allowed to participate in it.  The essence of marriage was union for life, not that it was male to  female.  It happened that the concept was formed when unions publicly acknowledged were heterosexual, due to the repression of homosexuality.  Had homosexuality been publicly acceptable (at least to the point of not drawing an instant death sentence) whenmarriage was first developed, then marriage would have been formulated to embrace both gay and straight marriages.  This is an opportunity to right an ancient injustice to gays, by broadening the definition of marriage to be more inclusive and less exclusive.

<<The latter then obligating the majority of the nation to disregard the teachings of their faith, because now the official definition of marriage is what Tee says its going to be.  >>

That's absolute nonsense.  Since when did the tenets of any religious faith depend on what the civil authorities thought or did?  If the state today recognizes abortion as legal, what religious group disregards the teachings of their faith and says, Well abortion must be OK because the government says its OK.  I think all religions teach their followers to be true to their church and their conscience, not to follow whatever path their government says is OK.

<<You know, it's funny this stigma you are really hanging your hat on, when trying to lay claim that such equal rights wouldn't be achieved with Civil Unions, when the logical repercussion is the stigma placed on the majority of religious folks, when confronted with others saying "look, the law says marriage can between anyone now, na na nana na", facilitating a stigma upon them as if they've been wrong all these centuries>>

More unadulterated craziness.  The stigma results from a discrimination made by the law of the land, not from the taunts of individual crazies like Falwell and others.  Obviously THAT stigma (Falwell's opinions) will remain regardless of what the law says or does.    The stigma you are referring to (the taunts of victorious gay-lib activists) is no more of a stigma than the denunciations of the Falwells, Popes and other crazies.  No law in the world can stop crazies or partisans from taunting their opponents.  That is not stigmatizing anyone, it is merely the expression of personal opinion.  When the LAW stigmatizes gays by disallowing their attempts to marry, it is in effect taking the side of one of two opposing groups in the society (the Falwells versus the gay-libbers) and thus giving their negative opinion the force of law.  Stigmatizing and unacceptable in the extreme.

<<Get back to me when you're ready normalize Adultery and Pedophilia, with some new redefinitions>>

The law recognizes already to get out of the adultery business - - it does not recognize it as anything other than grounds for divorce, and then it carries no penalties, which is to say no legal stigma.  It is basically nothing more or less than a breach of the marital contract.  Pedophelia is a criminal offence and is really a consent issue.  Gay marriage is banned not because it violates any contract, marital or otherwise and not for lack of consent of one of the partners.  It's clearly a case of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

[Amianthus]

While all of this scientific experimentation and conclusion seems evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced.  This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors, not biological ones.  Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality.

More at: http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

[Michael Tee]

Thanks for the link, Ami.  Personally, I'm going to go with the physical scientists here.  The twin studies, the neuroanatomy and the so-called gay gene studies, were reasonably persuasive.  The behaviourists were kinda fuzzy on their facts. They also didn't seem to even consider that homosexuality might be a matter of environmental factors superimposed on genetic predisposition.  Plus which I did not even have a clue what Foucault was talking about.  But the bottom line to me is that there is plenty of hard physical evidence to support a theory of no choice at all.

Besides which, the issue of choice is clearly a phony issue - - a guy who chooses to be gay is no more a legitimate target of persecution than someone who chooses to be Catholic or Jewish.

[sirs]

<<Because Marriage is that between a man and a woman.  That's why they're seperated, from a definition stand point, while the act of Civil Unions provides EQUAL RIGHTS under the law. >>

Marriage is between man and woman because the law defines it as such.  

WOW, you're catching on.  And Civil Unions could be the law defining the joining of same sex weddings

Marriage would not be redefined, it would simply be broadened

in other words, REDEFINED

<<And stiill again with the false analogy.  One that has NO choice (skin pigment), and the other who have complete choice (who they want to have sex with today), as far as I'm concerned, and until you actually have some FACTS to refute it, will remain precisely that>>

Even if....

LOL....ahh, here we go.... "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right, because...."

..you were correct in saying that gay people have chosen to be gay your reasoning makes no sense at all. 

That's because you wilfully refuse to make sense of it

What you are really saying is that no one who chooses an identity can be legally discriminated against, since he can always choose to enter or leave the identity he or she has chosen. 

WHAT?  No, that's what YOU'RE saying, not I.  I've actually kept it pretty simple.  Following YOUR words, guys who chose to marry many women can also apparently be legally discrimnated against.  So can those who chose to have sex with children

So if my neighbour converts to Judaism and then a law is passed that all Christians who have converted to the Jewish religion must perform two years of community service, there is no discrimination against Christian converts to Judaism because just like the neighbour chose to be Jewish, she can choose herself right back into Christianity and escape the discrimination.  I don't buy it.

That's because I never even implied it.  Kinda that false premise tactic again

<<EQUAL RIGHTS is the claim, when it's the redefinition of marriage as the primary goal, rights be damned. >>

YOU are the only one postulating this as the redefinition of marriage.  Marriage would retain the exact same definition it always had, except

....except that it WOULDN'T   

The essence of marriage was union for life

...between a male and a female,

This is an opportunity to right an ancient injustice to gays, by broadening the definition of marriage to be more inclusive and less exclusive.

Well, at least you're finally coming out of the woodwork and fessing up to the acual agenda I exposed way back in the beginning, not of equal rights, but in "even if I'm wrong, I'm right, because, it's righting an ancient injustice"  that you have concluded has happened.  Sorry, but one's choices in life don't get rewarded, in my book, when they're of the immoral realm.  Unless they're on Jerry Springer

[Michael Tee]

Here's a question for you:
1.  Adam chooses to marry Steve.  The law says You can't marry, but here's another right you can have that's just as good.
2.  Leroy does not choose his skin colour.  The law says You can't drink out of the WHITE fountain but here's another fountain you can     drink from that's just as good.
3.  Siobhan chooses to convert from Christianity to Judaism.  The law (admittedly hypothetical) says You (converts) can't sit on these Aryan park benches, but here's another park bench you can sit on that's just as good.

Presumably, you would agree with the law in situation No. 1, but not in the other two.

So how come 2 is discriminatory but 3 is not?  Seems obvious to me that even if the guy DID choose an identity and remains free to un-choose it, a law that discriminates against an identity he chose can be just as discriminatory as a law that discriminates against an identity that was not chosen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you so hung up on how marriage is DEFINED by law?  Definitions can be made by law and they can be changed by law.  If a definition was made during a time when one group was so historically repressed that it remained completely underground, so no thought at all was ever given as to whether or not that group could be included in the definition - - then once that group comes out of the closet and gains equal civil rights to everyone else, isn't it time to change the definition to include the formerly repressed group?  This is what happened to definitions like "citizen" and "voter," why not "spouse?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can continue to regard gays as immoral.  As long as you concede their right to vote, you would have to concede that they have also a right to marry.  If the only thing standing between their exercise of that right is that a WORD must be re-defined, then so be it.  How does the definition of a word (which is a mere academic concern) trump the importance of the exercise of a right?  Especially when the law has the power to re-define any term defining status and rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[_JS]

Sirs, you keep bringing up adultery with the likes of pedophillia.

You do realize that adultery, unlike pedophillia, is perfectly legal? (Before you look it up Ami  , there are laws against it in some states, but they are almost all Blue Laws)

What exactly is your point in comparing homosexuality to adultery? I do not see a parallel.

[kimba1]

actually adultery is a funny situation
it effects more lives negatively anything else
homosexuality doesn`t do this
all the wierd sex practices doesn`t do this
and still people focus on attacking anything but adultry
not protectying it ,but think it`s a low priority
it`s a safe bet alot if not all here know of a family broken by adultry
but very few here know of homosexuality doing the same
but still the focus is more on homosexuality.
hell we got a whole legal system (family law) devoted to cleaning up the mess of adultry
but nothing to really stop it
adultry can severely cost huge amount of money if caught and still it happens
the swingers society allow people to have sex with people they are not married to and the rule is don`t have sex without your spouses knowledge.
and still it happens.
I actually know of a swinging couple who did this.
and it doesn`t even make sense
did you know you actually get more dates if you wear a wedding ring.
I know guys who do this to increase thier game

[sirs]

Sirs, you keep bringing up adultery with the likes of pedophillia....What exactly is your point in comparing homosexuality to adultery? I do not see a parallel.

Because it's of the same "questionable choice" realm.  We get a plethora of rationalization efforts along the lines of "Homosexuality can't be a choice, who would chose such a life of apparent public degradation and ridicule?"  As if such an illogical choice translates into it can't be a choice.  I can make the same reference to Adultery & Pedophilia.  Why would anyone chose such outlandish & immoral behavior?  If you're to remain consistent, you must conclude that they have no choice.  Is that what you're concluding, married people who have sex with someone else, has no choice?? 

You do realize that adultery, unlike pedophillia, is perfectly legal?

Yes, and my point had nothing to do with legality, but with choices made from the sexual urges one can have