|
0 members (),
2
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,089
Posts313,786
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646 |
I prefer the term "same-gender" rather than "same-sex" because it refers to the status of the person rather than emphasizing "sex," which we all know is "icky" to Americans. In addition, many people "marry" without any intention of having sex. It constantly amazes me that people can raise the inability of same-gendered people to procreate as an argument against their marriage, when people well beyond childbearing age get married all the time just for companionship. I am repeating myself I suppose, but I do not think the gay community is of a single mind about anything, much less marriage vs. civil unions. What a surprise. Many White people are shocked to discover that not all Black people are of the same religion. Go figure.
Steve Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,285 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,285 Likes: 351 |
...I just can't see straight... Neither can I nor can I think str8 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 6,298
Admin Emeritus old hand
|
|
Admin Emeritus old hand
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 6,298 |
I support Sky's proposal to take the word away from everyone as far as the laws are concerned, with the proviso about equal benefits and burdens. I just can't see straight people being willing to give up the title. Maybe the idea will catch on. Just tonight in our local paper I read the following letter to the editor: As one who has close personal relationships with many who are homosexual as well as many who are devoutly religious, the issue of California’s Proposition 8 is of close personal interest to me. At this point, I’m wondering why someone hasn’t proposed another solution.
Why not do away with marriage as a provision of the government? As far as I can tell, “marriage” is a religious and spiritual institution — out of the realm of what a state should find it necessary to regulate. A one-size-fits-all civil contract that provides for basic property, custody, and visitation rights would be a better suit for our society. This would also provide for couples who aren’t ready to tie the knot, but would benefit from such advantages.(Sorry, no link.. I typed it in.) Seems like a great solution to me. One civil contract for everyone. Those who want the religious "marriage" ritual can go to their favorite flavor of church/mosque/temple/wat. Sky
SkyHawk
.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,285 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,285 Likes: 351 |
Seems like a great solution to me. One civil contract for everyone. Those who want the religious "marriage" ritual can go to their favorite flavor of church/mosque/temple/wat. ...then gays will legitimately be accused of "redefining" marriage. I'm just sayin'...
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129 Likes: 257
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129 Likes: 257 |
Same-sex couples in California (and Massachusetts, etc.) have never really had all the benefits of marriage, because the US government has not recognised either their civil unions or their marriages for legal and tax purposes.
Getting the benefits of federal recognition of same-sex civil unions is worth much much more than a state letting you refer to it as "marriage". This is the huge inequality that must be addressed. And if enough state supreme courts find the same way as Massachusetts and California (for equal-right civil unions), then eventually an Obama-picked US Supreme Court will render a similar opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,285 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,285 Likes: 351 |
Same-sex couples in California (and Massachusetts, etc.) have never really had all the benefits of marriage, because the US government has not recognised either their civil unions or their marriages for legal and tax purposes.
Getting the benefits of federal recognition of same-sex civil unions is worth much much more than a state letting you refer to it as "marriage". This is the huge inequality that must be addressed. And if enough state supreme courts find the same way as Massachusetts and California (for equal-right civil unions)... has a point. 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Yes, exactly the point I have been making all along. Glad he was able to put it in a way that you got it, Rick.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850 |
In addition, many people "marry" without any intention of having sex. It constantly amazes me that people can raise the inability of same-gendered people to procreate as an argument against their marriage, when people well beyond childbearing age get married all the time just for companionship. My wife was a putative Catholic when we decided to marry and felt compelled by family considerations to marry within that faith. During the mandatory Pre-Cana class, the priest required me to swear (but not to prove; he was an enlightened priest) that I was not impotent, but noted that it was okay to be sterile. I had always thought that the Catholic doctrine mandated procreation and so was a bit surprised. Upon questioning the two issues, I was informed that the Church felt it essential that the marriage be consumated, whether offspring sprung forth or not. So at least way back then, the "icky" stuff was a requirement; the future Catholics was an anticipated touch of icing on the cake.
"The white men were as thick and numerous and aimless as grasshoppers, moving always in a hurry but never seeming to get to whatever place it was they were going to." Dee Brown
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583 |
I support Sky's proposal to take the word away from everyone as far as the laws are concerned, with the proviso about equal benefits and burdens. I just can't see straight people being willing to give up the title. Maybe the idea will catch on. Just tonight in our local paper I read the following letter to the editor: As one who has close personal relationships with many who are homosexual as well as many who are devoutly religious, the issue of California’s Proposition 8 is of close personal interest to me. At this point, I’m wondering why someone hasn’t proposed another solution.
Why not do away with marriage as a provision of the government? As far as I can tell, “marriage” is a religious and spiritual institution — out of the realm of what a state should find it necessary to regulate. A one-size-fits-all civil contract that provides for basic property, custody, and visitation rights would be a better suit for our society. This would also provide for couples who aren’t ready to tie the knot, but would benefit from such advantages.(Sorry, no link.. I typed it in.) Seems like a great solution to me. One civil contract for everyone. Those who want the religious "marriage" ritual can go to their favorite flavor of church/mosque/temple/wat. Sky I concur with this solution. Being a devout Lutheran, I could satisfy both the legal conditions and my religious convictions. Gays/Lesbians would have equality and parity. Works for me. 
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)
Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850 |
A solution that might finally drive the schism in the Episcopal church into an outright canyon!
"The white men were as thick and numerous and aimless as grasshoppers, moving always in a hurry but never seeming to get to whatever place it was they were going to." Dee Brown
|
|
|
|
|
