Printable View
J2 my question was because of your insistance that the word marriage should not be used and if a "civil union" is not marriage for gays then any hetrosexual couple participating in such a union would not be married. ( civil union being exactly the same but not in the form of a religious ceromony)
How?Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman
Civil unions discriminate against single heterosexual single couples.
btw, "single heterosexual single couples" doesnt make sense. I'm assuming you mean "heterosexual couples"?
Anyone got any good reasons why polygamy shouldn't be allowed? Seems like just another religious hangup to me.
Imo if you want more than one wife and the wives consent to it then whats the problem?
Civil unions discriminate against single heterosexual single couples.Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+26 February 2004 - 19:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 26 February 2004 - 19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-NotoriousBIC@26 February 2004 - 08:35
Gays want the same rights as hetero couples. The rights being the same legal advantages which come from marriage.
I think they don't give a rat's ass (Sorry RF) about how it's called, so why is it so important to you?
That's why they're focusing on the Civil Union and that it's essentially the same as marriage in the legal sense.
btw, If gay couples are granted marriage then marriage has no gender barrier.
When does it end?
Polygamists will argue then that marriage should have a number attached to it.
Why can't I marry more than one wife?
What rationale would you come up with as to why not?
If this is then granted, then is there a limit to the number? [/b][/quote]
How so, people choose to get married?
Where does it end?
Well it doesn’t, people should have equal rights and two consenting adults no matter what sexuality gay, bisexual, transsexual ect should have the right to Marriage...
Civil Union (marriage) and Religious marriage are just the same thing except for the religous content; marriage is not an exclusive term that only religious people can use ;)
To me, my marriage is primarilly a religious thing. My wife and I made certain promises before God. The secular issues with regard to rights over property etc are at best a secondary issue.
On topic, for your president to want to amend your constitution to include a specific part which takes away rights / privilages from a minority group of American citizens, surely this must worry you ? Institutionalised bigotry, enshrined in your most sacred non-religious document. It would scare the beejezus out of me.
I have no particular issue with what gay people wish to call their union. I take j2's point re marriage currently having a specific meaning, so why change it. Why not use something else, can I propose garriage ?
Ian-Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@26 February 2004 - 19:40
Anyone got any good reasons why polygamy shouldn't be allowed? Seems like just another religious hangup to me.
Imo if you want more than one wife and the wives consent to it then whats the problem?
Thank you for pointing this out; I meant to, but managed to sidetrack myself.
vidcc-
Is it your contention that a heterosexual union, conducted by a civil authority (mayors, for example, are vested with this power), not be termed a marriage?
I'm having difficulty sussing your point. :huh:
This has been my main point all along, which you are the first to kind of take up on.Quote:
Originally posted by Agrajag@26 February 2004 - 16:27
On topic, for your president to want to amend your constitution to include a specific part which takes away rights / privilages from a minority group of American citizens, surely this must worry you ? Institutionalised bigotry, enshrined in your most sacred non-religious document. It would scare the beejezus out of me.
Everyone that is anti gay "marriage" seems to be so set on that point that they have missed the whole issue here...Human rights and equality... that or they just don't want gay people to have any.
My president took us into a war under the thin viel of fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people to live without repression...now he is trying to repress his own people.
I haven't yet seen a valid arguement as to the harm gay marriage would do to others apart from the mental anguish of knowing that something they don't like could be legal
i really couldn't care less if a gay couple want to get married, good luck to them, it won't affect my life one little bit. However the president wanting to change the constitution to remove liberty and justice from any section of society when it is specifically ment to protect ALL is possibly the worst thing that could happen to the USA
p.s. are you jpol incognito?
Ian-Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+27 February 2004 - 00:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 27 February 2004 - 00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@26 February 2004 - 19:40
Anyone got any good reasons why polygamy shouldn't be allowed? Seems like just another religious hangup to me.
Imo if you want more than one wife and the wives consent to it then whats the problem?
Thank you for pointing this out; I meant to, but managed to sidetrack myself.
vidcc-
Is it your contention that a heterosexual union, conducted by a civil authority (mayors, for example, are vested with this power), not be termed a marriage?
I'm having difficulty sussing your point. :huh: [/b][/quote]
I think the big problem with polygamy is the whole family lines thing. Just now it is difficult enough to do an audit trail on who begat whom and who is your second cousin ? Imagine if men were to marry 7 wives, or Women 7 husbands (an option seldom envisaged in discussions such as this). I pick the number 7 in an arbitrary manner, with a view to making the point.
Now imagine that several people were inter-married. So the wife had 7 husbands, the husband had 7 wives, some of whom were also married to one another.
I think this would be a recipe for the banjo becoming the instrument of choice in very few generations.
no it's not my contention at all, it's asking if you are making that contention. Let me make it even clearerQuote:
Originally posted by j2k4@26 February 2004 - 16:44
vidcc-
Is it your contention that a heterosexual union, conducted by a civil authority (mayors, for example, are vested with this power), not be termed a marriage?
I'm having difficulty sussing your point. :huh:
heterosexual union, conducted by a civil authority (mayors, for example, are vested with this power)...you call this marriage even though it has no religious connection...
homosexual union, conducted by a civil authority (mayors, for example, could be vested with this power)...you don't want to call it marriage.
Well if one isn't then the other isn't
the question was do YOU call a marriage that was conducted as a civil union a marriage or would you expect them to fill out the forms where it asks for marrital status...civil union?
You could not defend this statement the first time you said it, repeating yourself does not make it correct this time. How is it descriminatory against heterosexual couples?Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@26 February 2004 - 20:14
Civil unions discriminate against single heterosexual single couples.
From my response the first time:
Just because 2 gay men live together, it is not just a cost free option to take advantage of the system, it comes with certain obligations as well. This is why both gay and hetero couples who are not sure about their devotion are not "united", they want to be able to leave free and clear, if they desire.Quote:
The origin of the "civil union" was to give gays the same rights as heterosexual married couples but without using the word "married", which the Christian church feels to have proprietary rights over. It actually doesn't give the same rights, it gives less.
A homosexual couple cannot get married, a heterosexual couple can get married or have a civil union. Since a civil union has many disadvantages and NO advantages over marriage, why would they?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More importantly, I think Vidcc is right on the money here. I attempted to express the same point, a bit off topic in the Nader thread:
Quote:
It seems that people cannot seem to unburden themselves of their religious beliefs in regard to this issue and understand that preventing gay unions (which is equivalent to marriage) is an act of religion-based oppression in a country which touts itself as having a separation between the church and state.
Sometimes the shepards, although fewer in number, need to pull out their crooks and make the sheep do the right thing. Just because most sheep don't like the "black" ones, it does not mean that the "black" ones should not be allowed equal grazing opportunity. It is a matter of individual rights, not personal likes
BTW, did anyone notice that I had been plagiarized and by whom?Quote:
The issue has 2 clearly defined parts:
1) Under our constituition, same sex unions and hetero unions should be granted the same rights and privledges.
2) An absolute quibble- What should homosexual unions be called. Who cares, point 1 is all that matters, a recognition of constitutional rights.
Politicians like to use the terminalogy, marriage vs union vs whatever to footdrag and nitpick, but do anything but out and out declare that they are against it. They would have no grounds on which to defend this issue other than admitting that their politcal decisions are being corrupted by their religious convictions.
So take care of #1, and let the political foil, called #2, work itself out.
To state that I was saying that the withholding of the word "marriage" is religious oppression is ridiculous. It is the failure to grant equal rights that is the oppression. Call gay unions "garriage"or "fairiage", but just get it done.