- This topic has 770 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by
rubbieslippers.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM #205749May 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM #205619
DWCAP
Participantsigh, yes zk, I do. (feel better now? I will write it openly and so there is no abguity, ALL CITIZENS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.)
Where I have problems is with the way things are carried out, and how they are defined. I think any two legal aged, consenting adults should be able to enter into a union, recognized by whatever organizations or religions they want. Seperatly, I think they should be able to file this union with the federal/state gov inorder to qualify for certain normal tax/benifit rewards for choosing to enter into a union. The reason for this is that persons, of any orientation, are happier, healthier, and more financially sound when they have a partner, making for a better, stronger society. Perhaps this reward should be phased in, to avoid people filing and refiling for stupid, temporary reasons. The longer the union, the more stable it is and as such more rewarded. But I dont care about Adam or Eve/Steve. Rewards for children (currently a central point of the antigay union side) would be directly tied to the child, not the reproductive possibility.
In my eye, this is NOT a fight about “RIGHTS” as many of you so pasionatly argued here. I have read more than once on here that this is about protecting a group of peoples basis fundamental rights. Cept, gay people didnt gain a single right today. That is right, a SINGLE right. They already had them all. What was gained was a name. Marriage. That is it. You have pissed alot people off, waisted alot of money in court costs, and distracted many many people from things that are way more important, like our gaping deficit and failing schools/health system/roads/ecosystem etc etc on a word.
This isnt about civil rights. Homosexual people had every single right they do today, yesterday and tomorrow. This is about acceptance. If you wont accept me for who I am and how I choose to live my life, Ill FORCE YOU TO.
Here is a piece from the La Times OP page, from March 8th of this year. It is an argument FOR gay marriage. Cept, even they admit that this is about acceptance and a word, not about rights. You do not have the right to be accepted by everyone. You do not have the right to force organization that do not accept your actions to accept you (unless they are gov organizations). If you are free to form your opnion, then you must let others be free to form theirs, regardless of if it matches yours. If you cant accept others beliefs, cause they are different than your own, then you are no better than that which you fight against.
Basically, so no one can get confused cause it isnt spelled out in simple block letters, is that sueing for acceptance and forcing it on people will backfire and slow the real societal transformation to real acceptance. Same as you cant force democracy on people who dont understand or want it, you cant force acceptance of you and your actions on people who hold different values. If you cant make the case in an open vote, then tough. No rights were gained or lost today. “California couples gain partnership rights in areas such as child custody, legal claims, housing protections, bereavement leaves and state benefits” by the civil union laws passed in 2005.(http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/dompartcali.htm)
Funny, I thought someone said they didnt have those rights till today.May 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM #205671Participantsigh, yes zk, I do. (feel better now? I will write it openly and so there is no abguity, ALL CITIZENS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.)
Where I have problems is with the way things are carried out, and how they are defined. I think any two legal aged, consenting adults should be able to enter into a union, recognized by whatever organizations or religions they want. Seperatly, I think they should be able to file this union with the federal/state gov inorder to qualify for certain normal tax/benifit rewards for choosing to enter into a union. The reason for this is that persons, of any orientation, are happier, healthier, and more financially sound when they have a partner, making for a better, stronger society. Perhaps this reward should be phased in, to avoid people filing and refiling for stupid, temporary reasons. The longer the union, the more stable it is and as such more rewarded. But I dont care about Adam or Eve/Steve. Rewards for children (currently a central point of the antigay union side) would be directly tied to the child, not the reproductive possibility.
In my eye, this is NOT a fight about “RIGHTS” as many of you so pasionatly argued here. I have read more than once on here that this is about protecting a group of peoples basis fundamental rights. Cept, gay people didnt gain a single right today. That is right, a SINGLE right. They already had them all. What was gained was a name. Marriage. That is it. You have pissed alot people off, waisted alot of money in court costs, and distracted many many people from things that are way more important, like our gaping deficit and failing schools/health system/roads/ecosystem etc etc on a word.
This isnt about civil rights. Homosexual people had every single right they do today, yesterday and tomorrow. This is about acceptance. If you wont accept me for who I am and how I choose to live my life, Ill FORCE YOU TO.
Here is a piece from the La Times OP page, from March 8th of this year. It is an argument FOR gay marriage. Cept, even they admit that this is about acceptance and a word, not about rights. You do not have the right to be accepted by everyone. You do not have the right to force organization that do not accept your actions to accept you (unless they are gov organizations). If you are free to form your opnion, then you must let others be free to form theirs, regardless of if it matches yours. If you cant accept others beliefs, cause they are different than your own, then you are no better than that which you fight against.
Basically, so no one can get confused cause it isnt spelled out in simple block letters, is that sueing for acceptance and forcing it on people will backfire and slow the real societal transformation to real acceptance. Same as you cant force democracy on people who dont understand or want it, you cant force acceptance of you and your actions on people who hold different values. If you cant make the case in an open vote, then tough. No rights were gained or lost today. “California couples gain partnership rights in areas such as child custody, legal claims, housing protections, bereavement leaves and state benefits” by the civil union laws passed in 2005.(http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/dompartcali.htm)
Funny, I thought someone said they didnt have those rights till today.May 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM #205701Participantsigh, yes zk, I do. (feel better now? I will write it openly and so there is no abguity, ALL CITIZENS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.)
Where I have problems is with the way things are carried out, and how they are defined. I think any two legal aged, consenting adults should be able to enter into a union, recognized by whatever organizations or religions they want. Seperatly, I think they should be able to file this union with the federal/state gov inorder to qualify for certain normal tax/benifit rewards for choosing to enter into a union. The reason for this is that persons, of any orientation, are happier, healthier, and more financially sound when they have a partner, making for a better, stronger society. Perhaps this reward should be phased in, to avoid people filing and refiling for stupid, temporary reasons. The longer the union, the more stable it is and as such more rewarded. But I dont care about Adam or Eve/Steve. Rewards for children (currently a central point of the antigay union side) would be directly tied to the child, not the reproductive possibility.
In my eye, this is NOT a fight about “RIGHTS” as many of you so pasionatly argued here. I have read more than once on here that this is about protecting a group of peoples basis fundamental rights. Cept, gay people didnt gain a single right today. That is right, a SINGLE right. They already had them all. What was gained was a name. Marriage. That is it. You have pissed alot people off, waisted alot of money in court costs, and distracted many many people from things that are way more important, like our gaping deficit and failing schools/health system/roads/ecosystem etc etc on a word.
This isnt about civil rights. Homosexual people had every single right they do today, yesterday and tomorrow. This is about acceptance. If you wont accept me for who I am and how I choose to live my life, Ill FORCE YOU TO.
Here is a piece from the La Times OP page, from March 8th of this year. It is an argument FOR gay marriage. Cept, even they admit that this is about acceptance and a word, not about rights. You do not have the right to be accepted by everyone. You do not have the right to force organization that do not accept your actions to accept you (unless they are gov organizations). If you are free to form your opnion, then you must let others be free to form theirs, regardless of if it matches yours. If you cant accept others beliefs, cause they are different than your own, then you are no better than that which you fight against.
Basically, so no one can get confused cause it isnt spelled out in simple block letters, is that sueing for acceptance and forcing it on people will backfire and slow the real societal transformation to real acceptance. Same as you cant force democracy on people who dont understand or want it, you cant force acceptance of you and your actions on people who hold different values. If you cant make the case in an open vote, then tough. No rights were gained or lost today. “California couples gain partnership rights in areas such as child custody, legal claims, housing protections, bereavement leaves and state benefits” by the civil union laws passed in 2005.(http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/dompartcali.htm)
Funny, I thought someone said they didnt have those rights till today.May 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM #205722Participantsigh, yes zk, I do. (feel better now? I will write it openly and so there is no abguity, ALL CITIZENS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.)
Where I have problems is with the way things are carried out, and how they are defined. I think any two legal aged, consenting adults should be able to enter into a union, recognized by whatever organizations or religions they want. Seperatly, I think they should be able to file this union with the federal/state gov inorder to qualify for certain normal tax/benifit rewards for choosing to enter into a union. The reason for this is that persons, of any orientation, are happier, healthier, and more financially sound when they have a partner, making for a better, stronger society. Perhaps this reward should be phased in, to avoid people filing and refiling for stupid, temporary reasons. The longer the union, the more stable it is and as such more rewarded. But I dont care about Adam or Eve/Steve. Rewards for children (currently a central point of the antigay union side) would be directly tied to the child, not the reproductive possibility.
In my eye, this is NOT a fight about “RIGHTS” as many of you so pasionatly argued here. I have read more than once on here that this is about protecting a group of peoples basis fundamental rights. Cept, gay people didnt gain a single right today. That is right, a SINGLE right. They already had them all. What was gained was a name. Marriage. That is it. You have pissed alot people off, waisted alot of money in court costs, and distracted many many people from things that are way more important, like our gaping deficit and failing schools/health system/roads/ecosystem etc etc on a word.
This isnt about civil rights. Homosexual people had every single right they do today, yesterday and tomorrow. This is about acceptance. If you wont accept me for who I am and how I choose to live my life, Ill FORCE YOU TO.
Here is a piece from the La Times OP page, from March 8th of this year. It is an argument FOR gay marriage. Cept, even they admit that this is about acceptance and a word, not about rights. You do not have the right to be accepted by everyone. You do not have the right to force organization that do not accept your actions to accept you (unless they are gov organizations). If you are free to form your opnion, then you must let others be free to form theirs, regardless of if it matches yours. If you cant accept others beliefs, cause they are different than your own, then you are no better than that which you fight against.
Basically, so no one can get confused cause it isnt spelled out in simple block letters, is that sueing for acceptance and forcing it on people will backfire and slow the real societal transformation to real acceptance. Same as you cant force democracy on people who dont understand or want it, you cant force acceptance of you and your actions on people who hold different values. If you cant make the case in an open vote, then tough. No rights were gained or lost today. “California couples gain partnership rights in areas such as child custody, legal claims, housing protections, bereavement leaves and state benefits” by the civil union laws passed in 2005.(http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/dompartcali.htm)
Funny, I thought someone said they didnt have those rights till today.May 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM #205755Participantsigh, yes zk, I do. (feel better now? I will write it openly and so there is no abguity, ALL CITIZENS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.)
Where I have problems is with the way things are carried out, and how they are defined. I think any two legal aged, consenting adults should be able to enter into a union, recognized by whatever organizations or religions they want. Seperatly, I think they should be able to file this union with the federal/state gov inorder to qualify for certain normal tax/benifit rewards for choosing to enter into a union. The reason for this is that persons, of any orientation, are happier, healthier, and more financially sound when they have a partner, making for a better, stronger society. Perhaps this reward should be phased in, to avoid people filing and refiling for stupid, temporary reasons. The longer the union, the more stable it is and as such more rewarded. But I dont care about Adam or Eve/Steve. Rewards for children (currently a central point of the antigay union side) would be directly tied to the child, not the reproductive possibility.
In my eye, this is NOT a fight about “RIGHTS” as many of you so pasionatly argued here. I have read more than once on here that this is about protecting a group of peoples basis fundamental rights. Cept, gay people didnt gain a single right today. That is right, a SINGLE right. They already had them all. What was gained was a name. Marriage. That is it. You have pissed alot people off, waisted alot of money in court costs, and distracted many many people from things that are way more important, like our gaping deficit and failing schools/health system/roads/ecosystem etc etc on a word.
This isnt about civil rights. Homosexual people had every single right they do today, yesterday and tomorrow. This is about acceptance. If you wont accept me for who I am and how I choose to live my life, Ill FORCE YOU TO.
Here is a piece from the La Times OP page, from March 8th of this year. It is an argument FOR gay marriage. Cept, even they admit that this is about acceptance and a word, not about rights. You do not have the right to be accepted by everyone. You do not have the right to force organization that do not accept your actions to accept you (unless they are gov organizations). If you are free to form your opnion, then you must let others be free to form theirs, regardless of if it matches yours. If you cant accept others beliefs, cause they are different than your own, then you are no better than that which you fight against.
Basically, so no one can get confused cause it isnt spelled out in simple block letters, is that sueing for acceptance and forcing it on people will backfire and slow the real societal transformation to real acceptance. Same as you cant force democracy on people who dont understand or want it, you cant force acceptance of you and your actions on people who hold different values. If you cant make the case in an open vote, then tough. No rights were gained or lost today. “California couples gain partnership rights in areas such as child custody, legal claims, housing protections, bereavement leaves and state benefits” by the civil union laws passed in 2005.(http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/dompartcali.htm)
Funny, I thought someone said they didnt have those rights till today.May 16, 2008 at 6:33 AM #205630zk
ParticipantDWCAP,
Now I understand why you kept arguing the way you did. You thought that CA gays didn’t gain anything yesterday except a word. If that were true, I’d agree with you. To me the word “marriage” isn’t important (except as it applies to getting benefits – see below article). As I’ve said all along, I’d be fine with a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) as long as the benefits were exactly the same as marriage. But they’re not. And CA gays did gain more than a word.
There’s a lesbian who I work with who can’t get her partner on her health insurance. They’ve been together for over a decade, and she should be able to have her partner on her health insurance just as much as I should be able to have my wife on mine. But under her “domestic partnership,” she can’t. When they’re married, she’ll be able to have her partner on her health insurance.
May 16, 2008 at 6:33 AM #205681ParticipantDWCAP,
Now I understand why you kept arguing the way you did. You thought that CA gays didn’t gain anything yesterday except a word. If that were true, I’d agree with you. To me the word “marriage” isn’t important (except as it applies to getting benefits – see below article). As I’ve said all along, I’d be fine with a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) as long as the benefits were exactly the same as marriage. But they’re not. And CA gays did gain more than a word.
There’s a lesbian who I work with who can’t get her partner on her health insurance. They’ve been together for over a decade, and she should be able to have her partner on her health insurance just as much as I should be able to have my wife on mine. But under her “domestic partnership,” she can’t. When they’re married, she’ll be able to have her partner on her health insurance.
May 16, 2008 at 6:33 AM #205711ParticipantDWCAP,
Now I understand why you kept arguing the way you did. You thought that CA gays didn’t gain anything yesterday except a word. If that were true, I’d agree with you. To me the word “marriage” isn’t important (except as it applies to getting benefits – see below article). As I’ve said all along, I’d be fine with a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) as long as the benefits were exactly the same as marriage. But they’re not. And CA gays did gain more than a word.
There’s a lesbian who I work with who can’t get her partner on her health insurance. They’ve been together for over a decade, and she should be able to have her partner on her health insurance just as much as I should be able to have my wife on mine. But under her “domestic partnership,” she can’t. When they’re married, she’ll be able to have her partner on her health insurance.
May 16, 2008 at 6:33 AM #205732ParticipantDWCAP,
Now I understand why you kept arguing the way you did. You thought that CA gays didn’t gain anything yesterday except a word. If that were true, I’d agree with you. To me the word “marriage” isn’t important (except as it applies to getting benefits – see below article). As I’ve said all along, I’d be fine with a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) as long as the benefits were exactly the same as marriage. But they’re not. And CA gays did gain more than a word.
There’s a lesbian who I work with who can’t get her partner on her health insurance. They’ve been together for over a decade, and she should be able to have her partner on her health insurance just as much as I should be able to have my wife on mine. But under her “domestic partnership,” she can’t. When they’re married, she’ll be able to have her partner on her health insurance.
May 16, 2008 at 6:33 AM #205763ParticipantDWCAP,
Now I understand why you kept arguing the way you did. You thought that CA gays didn’t gain anything yesterday except a word. If that were true, I’d agree with you. To me the word “marriage” isn’t important (except as it applies to getting benefits – see below article). As I’ve said all along, I’d be fine with a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) as long as the benefits were exactly the same as marriage. But they’re not. And CA gays did gain more than a word.
There’s a lesbian who I work with who can’t get her partner on her health insurance. They’ve been together for over a decade, and she should be able to have her partner on her health insurance just as much as I should be able to have my wife on mine. But under her “domestic partnership,” she can’t. When they’re married, she’ll be able to have her partner on her health insurance.
May 16, 2008 at 8:13 AM #205674jpinpb
Participantzk – I agree and stated it earlier that there are tax and insurance reasons for why gay people want to get married and why it is opposed by government. Religion is a disguise to get people emotional. It’s always about money.
By the same token, the couple you speak of have been together for 10 years, w/out the benefits. Not a financial decision for them, but out of love. It’s just as sweet as heterosexual couples who make a commitment to each other. And I also agree that it’s healthy.
May 16, 2008 at 8:13 AM #205725Participantzk – I agree and stated it earlier that there are tax and insurance reasons for why gay people want to get married and why it is opposed by government. Religion is a disguise to get people emotional. It’s always about money.
By the same token, the couple you speak of have been together for 10 years, w/out the benefits. Not a financial decision for them, but out of love. It’s just as sweet as heterosexual couples who make a commitment to each other. And I also agree that it’s healthy.
May 16, 2008 at 8:13 AM #205754Participantzk – I agree and stated it earlier that there are tax and insurance reasons for why gay people want to get married and why it is opposed by government. Religion is a disguise to get people emotional. It’s always about money.
By the same token, the couple you speak of have been together for 10 years, w/out the benefits. Not a financial decision for them, but out of love. It’s just as sweet as heterosexual couples who make a commitment to each other. And I also agree that it’s healthy.
May 16, 2008 at 8:13 AM #205777Participantzk – I agree and stated it earlier that there are tax and insurance reasons for why gay people want to get married and why it is opposed by government. Religion is a disguise to get people emotional. It’s always about money.
By the same token, the couple you speak of have been together for 10 years, w/out the benefits. Not a financial decision for them, but out of love. It’s just as sweet as heterosexual couples who make a commitment to each other. And I also agree that it’s healthy.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.