|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 164 of 293:
| 
Dec 14 06:48 UTC 2003 |
There will be many fewer homosexual couples than heterosexual couples - the
whole issue of additonal benefit costs - at most a percent or two - is
a red herring.
I do know there is opposition to homosexuality among the great busy-body
masses. It is certainly a problem, but not something to value and make
an effort to preserve. As has been pointed out, it is just like intolerance
of any minority and we have partially surmounted a lot of that.
|
lk
|
|
response 165 of 293:
|
Dec 14 07:49 UTC 2003 |
Jep, re#163, I appreciate our comments, but:
I didn't say that anyone who disagrees with me "must not have any basis for
their opinion at all". What I said is that no one had presented such a
basis -- which is why you posted what you did, despite not fully agreeing
with it. And the 3 reasons you conjure aren't very compelling:
> children
Many gay relationships involve children. Moreso amongst women than men, but
this could change were gay marriage an option.
> employment benefits
As a small business owner, trust me when I say I know what "insurance
companies are doing now". [Ouch!] Yet this argument fails on two levels.
First, isn't this argument saying that we should discriminate against someone
because it would cost too much not to do so? Wasn't this argument used to
argue for slavery? Second, according to a study conducted by Lotus before
they began offering benefits to gay domestic partners, the costs were
relatively insignificant -- especially compared to the talent one might
lose by not offering such benefits.
Now here is where I think you are on to something:
> It is very important to a lot of people to oppose homosexuality in any
> way possible. Some people have religious reasons, some are just
> disinclined to accept things that are new....
> There was *hatred* for homosexuality....
Exacty. The driving reason is often "homophobia", either for religous reasons
or due to personal discomfort. The excuses ("weakens marriage", "costs too
much", "children") are rationalizations attempting to justify the irrational.
They fail.
As Rane said, this intolerance & hate is not unlike those of other minorities
which predate it and which are in the process of being surmounted.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 166 of 293:
|
Dec 14 15:05 UTC 2003 |
Marriage does not equal children. Couples who are too old to have children
marry. Infertile people marry. Couples who don't ever want to have kids
marry. So what?
The financial issue exists, but based on what I saw when it came up at UM,
it's really used as a proxy by people who simply hate gays, or at least hate
homosexuality itself.
And hatred should NEVER be used as a basis for public policy.
|
twenex
|
|
response 167 of 293:
|
Dec 14 15:14 UTC 2003 |
So Muslims and Jews have the "particulars" wrong?
I suppose you mean th practitioners of neither religion follow their
holy book to the letter, or the spirit, depending on which you think
is more important?
Oh, wait...! I am sure you mean that because their world view does not
agree with yours, they therefore are manifestly and demonstrably
wrong.
You are SO lucky I am not 1. Unstable; 2. Convinced of my own
righteousness; 3. In favour of gun ownership; 4. In America.
However, I *am* both disgusted and amazed that you could disgust me
any further than you already had.
|
gull
|
|
response 168 of 293:
|
Dec 14 16:14 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:163:
> Government's interest in marriage and need to control it is partly
> due to concerns for children. Who takes care of the kids? This
> is important, but pretty much only for heterosexual marriages.
But we don't limit heterosexual marriage to people who are fertile.
> There are employment benefits for married people. These benefits
> are getting quickly weaker, even now. If you don't think it
> would hurt married couples to have a lot of what are currently
> known as "domestic partnerships" declared "marriages", you just
> simply aren't paying attention to what the insurance companies
> are doing now.
So basically, you're justifying discrimination as a way to artificially
limit the demand for insurance? Besides, I'm not convinced the impact
would be that great -- I suspect the majority of homosexual partnerships
are two-income households, and the number of partnerships nationwide is
pretty small compared to the overall population.
|
keesan
|
|
response 169 of 293:
|
Dec 14 19:21 UTC 2003 |
My two neighbors who just bought a house together have a child with two
mothers. More homosexual couples might have children if they were given the
legal rights to be coparents of children born to them or adopted together.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 170 of 293:
|
Dec 14 19:21 UTC 2003 |
What happened at UM when they proposed benefits for same-sex domestic partners
is that two of the most conservative Regents (the university's elected
governing body) opposed it on economic grounds, saying it would cost the
university tons of money and threaten the employee benefit system. It passed
anyway, and something like 50 couples (out of some 30,000 employees) have
actually made use of it.
Basically, that argument is spurious, and it's usually used by people like
those two Regents who demonstrably hate gays as a cover for their real reasons
to oppose gay rights. One of the two went on to oppose the existence of an
office here to provide counseling for gay students, on the grounds that it
would be used to brainwash students into homsexuality. No bias there.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 171 of 293:
|
Dec 14 19:22 UTC 2003 |
169 slipped. And she's right. But marriage is NOT linked to rugrats, and
should NOT be.
|
jep
|
|
response 172 of 293:
|
Dec 15 02:15 UTC 2003 |
One thing on which I do agree with the anti-gay crowd on is the
word "homophobia". I don't think there's any way to promote
understanding and tolerance by the use of such labels. I find it
offensive and I am not really one of the ones being targeted by it.
|
jep
|
|
response 173 of 293:
|
Dec 15 02:26 UTC 2003 |
re resp:168: I am not justifying anything. I'm not anti-gay.
re resp:166, 170: Joe, I had not heard any such statistics, and find
them very interesting. Have any more information like that about
other places which give benefits to those who are not in a
heterosexual marriage?
Also: Are you sure that information isn't propaganda? (There is
certainly a lot of spinning of facts around these days.)
|
jep
|
|
response 174 of 293:
|
Dec 15 02:44 UTC 2003 |
My position on gay marriage issues: I don't think the government
should prohibit them. I agree it's discrimination. I don't see much
difference between the former issue of inter-racial marriage (long
since settled) and gay marriage.
I'm not going to become a gay rights activist, or support them other
than by staying out of their way. There are bigger issues in my
life. The biggest part of this one will get resolved in a few years,
no matter what I think. That's good enough for me.
|
bru
|
|
response 175 of 293:
|
Dec 15 03:57 UTC 2003 |
twenex, did you just threaten my life? I think you did. Why?
You will notice I ddiin't say who was right. Or what they were right about,
or wrong about, or even if every christian was right. Get a grip on reality.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 176 of 293:
|
Dec 15 04:25 UTC 2003 |
Re #173: I don't think the number's propaganda, but according to one source
I found (a Michigan Daily article quoting someone from UM's benefits
office), the number I was remembering is a bit low. They're saying
61 men and 69 women have registered partners, so the total is (or
was in 2000) 130. That's still a tiny number compared to the total
number of employees, which I'm guessing at around 30K (probably
low).
Re #175: As a matter of law, he did *not* threaten your life. Statements
of the form "if I weren't X, I'd kick your ass" are not classically
considered threats (assault) because the speaker is making it clear
that he's not going to carry out the action, since the condition
that would prevent it is present. Have a nice day. :-)
|
russ
|
|
response 177 of 293:
|
Dec 15 04:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #159: The Turks did not introduce Europeans to coffee; the Turks
abandoned sacks of coffee after their second (failed) siege of Vienna,
and a monk showed everyone how it could be made into a tasty drink.
The monk happened to be a Capuchin, thus cappucino.
Re #171: I disagree with your last sentence, violently. Children
need stability almost as much as they need food and shelter. People
who cannot sustain a stable, committed relationship should not have,
or be allowed to adopt, children.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 178 of 293:
|
Dec 15 04:43 UTC 2003 |
Russ, you're misinterpreting it -- though I don't think marriage is a
prerequisite to a stable, committed relationship.
What I meant is that marriage is not just for having children, and should not
be looked at as such.
|
twenex
|
|
response 179 of 293:
|
Dec 15 09:22 UTC 2003 |
I didn't threaten your life. I've got far better things to do than
dealing that way with people like you. Like educating them. Or
watching tv. Or pissing on flies.
Presumably if marriage is simply a means to the end of producing
children, one should invalidate all marriages which do not produce
kids.
I'm Henry VIII I am, I am, I'm Henry VIII I am....
|
twenex
|
|
response 180 of 293:
|
Dec 15 10:07 UTC 2003 |
Bru:
You said that Jews and Muslims believe in the same God as Christians,
but that Jews' and Muslims' interpretation is wrong. That only leaves
Christians to be right.
Reasons why gay marriage should be legalized:
1. We are moving towards equality of gays with heterosexuals. In order
for that process to be complete, ALL rights, including marriage, must
therefore be accorded gay couples if we are to claim that they truly
have equal rights in law. Equal rights in law a a necessary and vital
step in promoting equality in society, since it leave those who would
deny rights based on the law without a leg to stand on.
2. Christianity and Islam demand respect for infidels and sinners, as
they believe they can be redeemed. (Does Judaism preach the same
thing? I was always under the impression that Judaism dpes not attempt
to bring Gentiles into the fold, however tolerant individuals or
communities of Jews may be.) Therefore, and especially since it is up
to God to decide who goes down below, a true Christian or Muslim will
not condeemn a man or woman to ostracism simply because of their
homosexuality, any more than because of their pagan religion.
3. The point of state secularism is to promote religious toleration;
therefore the question of gay marriage being legalized by the civil
courts should be divorced (for want of a better word) from the
question of its legality according to church law.
4. Church law is not immutable; the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was
developed by the early Church after the death of Jesus, whilst the
doctrine of Papal infallibility dates from the 11th century, or a
little earlier.
5. There is no question in mymind that the Bible was not meant to be
taken literaqlly, but was meant as ae "handbook" for better human
relationships and a metaphorical means to understand the world. Thus
the liberal (to use hte word w/o its political connotations)
interpretation of "an eye for an eye" as an exhortation to let the
punishment fit the crime, not to pluck out the eye of someone who
blinded someone else. Therefore among thinking Christians, there
should be no objection to discussing the best way of dealing with
homosexuality.
6. Discrimination against gays is an obstacle to their achieving their
full potential, and therefore as a libertarian I cannot help being
implacably opposed. (Most of you will have noticed that when I oppose
something, I oppose it implacably anyhow.)
7. Even if you do not accept #1, equality before the law3 of all
citizens is one of the basic tenets of a liberal democracy; therefore,
by accepting #7, you must accept #1. If you do not accept #1, or by
extension #7, you hold a viewpoint that is anti-American. (Those who
forget what relevance this has to an Englishman should remember that
provincial legislators and delegates to the Continental Congress at
first demanded the law be administered according to "the rights of
Englishmen", changing this to "natural rights"; theefore their
struggle for liberation was basedon a desire to restore those rights
they believe they had under English law; natural, since the Colonies
were founded by the English, and even then, a large proportion of
Americans wee born in England.
|
bru
|
|
response 181 of 293:
|
Dec 15 14:46 UTC 2003 |
well, look at it this way. If Jews, Moslems, adn Christians all worship the
same God, They all say they want peace, adn tehy all keep fighting each other,
SOMBODY has got it wrong!
Therefore among thinking Christians, there should be no objection to
discussing the best way of dealing with homosexuality.
twenex, I suppose the problem is that most christians do "not" want to deal
with homosexuality. They don't want anythign to do with it. they don't want
to talk about it, they do not want to hear about it. They do not want to know
what goes on between homosexuals in the beadroom, they don't want to think
about it.
Most christians also view marriage as a sacrament. it is something the church
puts a blessing on. IT IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. As such, they cannot
tolerate it being debased by ordering them to bless what they view as a sin.
I know, I know, no one is ordering them to bless anything. But that is how
they feel it is being pushed. How many of these homosexual couples are going
to want to get married in church? How many of them are going to push their
respective diocese to accpt them because the law says it is now legal? How
long before some church finds itself sued becuse they are discriminating
against gays by not letting them get married in the chapel? (don't laugh,
we have seen people sue over other things equally as ridiculous)
And down that slippery slope in the far, far future, is it possible that the
law will say that a church cannot discriminate, and by doing so, will force
the church to either change its beliefs, or penalize it? In effect, is that
not the state making a law with regards to religion, and a violation of the
constitution?
My personal preference is that we accept civil unions with all teh rights and
privelages of a monogomous couple, but that it bextended beyond sexual
relationship. Why should I have to F--k someone to have a civil relationship
and extend to them benefits from my medical insurance?
|
scott
|
|
response 182 of 293:
|
Dec 15 16:35 UTC 2003 |
So which is the "one true" religion, then? Which sect, and which version of
the holy book?
|
gull
|
|
response 183 of 293:
|
Dec 15 16:56 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:181:
> I suppose the problem is that most christians do "not" want to deal
> with homosexuality. They don't want anythign to do with it.
> they don't want to talk about it, they do not want to hear about it.
Funny, they sure spend an awful lot of time talking about it. If they
don't want to deal with it, why do they spend so much time trying to
control homosexuals' behaviour?
> Most christians also view marriage as a sacrament. it is something
> the church puts a blessing on. IT IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.
But it's also a secular contract. That's part of the problem here.
There are really two different concepts, which are being linked
artificially. Part of this is historic, and part of it is political.
By linking secular marriage and religious marriage, it becomes much more
acceptable to try to deny marriage to homosexuals -- you're "defending
the purity of religion" instead of just discriminating against people
whose choice of mate you don't like.
> And down that slippery slope in the far, far future, is it possible
> that the law will say that a church cannot discriminate, and by doing
> so, will force the church to either change its beliefs, or penalize
> it?
No, this is why we have seperation of church and state. However, this
is a good reason for Christians to think long and hard about whether
they want to support things like "faith based initiatives." If you
erase part of the boundary between church and state by letting
government money start funding religious activities, you may eventually
find there are strings attached and that the parts of that boundary that
prevent the government from dictating what religious groups can and
cannot do are getting hazy as well.
Re resp:182: Good question. Not even all Christian denominations agree
about this. I'm curious which Christian denominations bru thinks got it
right, and which denominations he thinks are going to Hell.
|
twenex
|
|
response 184 of 293:
|
Dec 15 17:45 UTC 2003 |
I think I'll just shut up and let gull speak for me.
|
klg
|
|
response 185 of 293:
|
Dec 15 17:56 UTC 2003 |
(This is just way too good to pass up.)
Great Moments in Sex Education by the Massachusetts Supreme Court
An alert (Opinionjournal.com) reader calls our attention to a footnote
No. 23 in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, last month's
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision declaring the traditional
definition of marriage unconstitutional:
It is hardly surprising that civil marriage developed
historically as a means to regulate heterosexual conduct
and to promote child rearing, because until very recently
unassisted heterosexual relations were the only means short
of adoption by which children could come into the world.
|
twenex
|
|
response 186 of 293:
|
Dec 15 18:11 UTC 2003 |
Yes, and now we have adoption, legalized gay partnerships, and
artificial insemination, we're free to implement gay marriage. Did we
wait before putting the new inventions of the wheel and the computer
to use?
|
klg
|
|
response 187 of 293:
|
Dec 15 18:18 UTC 2003 |
Mr. tweenex-
Go back and read it again.
klg
|
twenex
|
|
response 188 of 293:
|
Dec 15 18:21 UTC 2003 |
Only thing that has changd after a second reading is this: Pointing
out that children do not "come into the world" via adoption, but aare
adopted once they've been born.
|