Poetry Forum

Full Version: British Lawmakers Approve Gay Marriage
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
One will never know...

If a carbon tax were being used to actually subsidise green energy initiatives or something similar, I probably wouldn't be so cynical (I'd still be a bit cynical or I'd be losing my edge)... but it's mostly used to fund ministerial travel to far off places and sometimes, new furniture at The Lodge.

Warnie must be a bit pissed off that he got banned for taking his mum's diuretics one time, when he could have been on the good stuff for years Smile

Now, stop with the distractions. We're talking about fuelling the tuxedo industry here.
(02-08-2013, 05:24 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]One will never know...

If a carbon tax were being used to actually subsidise green energy initiatives or something similar, I probably wouldn't be so cynical (I'd still be a bit cynical or I'd be losing my edge)... but it's mostly used to fund ministerial travel to far off places and sometimes, new furniture at The Lodge.

Warnie must be a bit pissed off that he got banned for taking his mum's diuretics one time, when he could have been on the good stuff for years Smile

Now, stop with the distractions. We're talking about fuelling the tuxedo industry here.

Ha! Of course. But take care with your propensity to cynicism. Look where it led the Big Cynic, Diogenes -- a barrel. Don't know how the old man would feel about that.....Smile
Depends what the barrel was full of.
It's mostly just about equal rights. I don't understand anyone's argument against it. I hate when people compare same-sex marriage to marrying your siblings or animals or inanimate objects. It's not the same, and you're taking it too far. The idea is *equal rights.*
(03-18-2014, 12:47 PM)newsclippings Wrote: [ -> ]It's mostly just about equal rights. I don't understand anyone's argument against it. I hate when people compare same-sex marriage to marrying your siblings or animals or inanimate objects. It's not the same, and you're taking it too far. The idea is *equal rights.*

I think that's a little too simplistic. For the most part - taxes and medical care and such - the rights have been equal for some time and any remaining pettiness would be far easier settled than getting same sex marriages legalized. Also, I know several same sex couple who wanted to get married and none of them wanted to do it for any sort of rights.
"Couples who have a civil union will not have any of the protections or responsibilities federal law provides to married couples. These include social security survivors’ and spousal benefits, federal veterans’ spousal benefits, immigration rights associated with marriage, federal spousal employment benefits, the right to file joint federal tax returns, exemptions from income tax on your partner’s health benefits, the federal exemption from inheritance tax, and many other federal protections which are denied same-sex couples whether legally joined in a civil union or a civil marriage.
Also, most other states will not recognize the legal status of your civil union, even though they would recognize the Illinois marriage of a different-sex couple. This means that when you travel or if you move to another state or country, your union may not be recognized. As a result, you should considering taking certain precautions before you travel, such as executing health care and financial powers of attorney and carrying those with you.
Finally, the most important difference between civil unions and marriage for many individuals is the second-class nature of civil unions. Civil marriage is a widely recognized and respected social structure for two people who have committed to build their life together. Civil unions are not universally understood. It is unclear whether they will be given the same level of respect as marriage in Illinois and elsewhere. What is already clear is that different-sex couples get to choose whether to enter a civil marriage or a civil union; lesbian and gay male couples are given only the civil union option."

From the ACLU
(03-18-2014, 01:18 PM)newsclippings Wrote: [ -> ]"Couples who have a civil union will not have any of the protections or responsibilities federal law provides to married couples. These include social security survivors’ and spousal benefits, federal veterans’ spousal benefits, immigration rights associated with marriage, federal spousal employment benefits, the right to file joint federal tax returns, exemptions from income tax on your partner’s health benefits, the federal exemption from inheritance tax, and many other federal protections which are denied same-sex couples whether legally joined in a civil union or a civil marriage.
Also, most other states will not recognize the legal status of your civil union, even though they would recognize the Illinois marriage of a different-sex couple. This means that when you travel or if you move to another state or country, your union may not be recognized. As a result, you should considering taking certain precautions before you travel, such as executing health care and financial powers of attorney and carrying those with you.
Finally, the most important difference between civil unions and marriage for many individuals is the second-class nature of civil unions. Civil marriage is a widely recognized and respected social structure for two people who have committed to build their life together. Civil unions are not universally understood. It is unclear whether they will be given the same level of respect as marriage in Illinois and elsewhere. What is already clear is that different-sex couples get to choose whether to enter a civil marriage or a civil union; lesbian and gay male couples are given only the civil union option."

From the ACLU

That is both dated and from a biased source as I'm sure you know.
I think people should be allowed to marry if they wanna marry. It's that simple. It's not right to tell them to get over semantics.

Especially when civil unions aren't even legalized everywhere.
(03-18-2014, 01:32 PM)newsclippings Wrote: [ -> ]I think people should be allowed to marry if they wanna marry. It's that simple. It's not right to tell them to get over semantics.

Especially when civil unions aren't even legalized everywhere.

It's great that you think that and it's easy to paint everyone that disagrees with you as ignorant rednecks but you ought to at least consider the fact that there are millions of intelligent people who have nothing against homosexuality that have good arguments for why they don't support same sex marriage. I don't think assuming everyone against it is somehow inferior to you is a reasonable discourse.
Where did you read me saying ignorant rednecks or inferiority? Now you're just adding things to this argument that I didn't even bring up. You don't like the law changing a definition? Why don't you consider that getting married means more for gay people than your demands for it not to change?
One interesting point that comes up not often enough in this debate is: why does the gvt have a hand to play in marriage at all?? Why do they care who we choose to partner up with, and why the hell do they regulate it? It'd be easier if it was totally unregulated by the law, but then once ppl marry in their religion or just in front of witnesses or whatever then they declare to the gvt that spousal rights should go to this person, and then it's done. (Then divorce would be revoking those rights.) That way religions wouldn't have to marry gays if they were against it, yet gays would be free to marry. Not sure I'm expressing myself well, but it's something to consider.
I suppose politicians want to pacify their voters. They are more than eager to regulate every aspect of our lives. Since they collect marriage license fees and extra tax from married couples, they should be behind it. Most politicians are lawyers and lawyers make a fortune during divorce proceedings.
(03-18-2014, 02:00 PM)newsclippings Wrote: [ -> ]Where did you read me saying ignorant rednecks or inferiority? Now you're just adding things to this argument that I didn't even bring up. You don't like the law changing a definition? Why don't you consider that getting married means more for gay people than your demands for it not to change?

I don't take a position on the issue at all as it doesn't affect me. It was you who simplified the whole discussion to "equal rights" when it's not the case at all and then started discussing incest and bestiality.

(03-18-2014, 07:48 PM)ChristopherSea Wrote: [ -> ]I suppose politicians want to pacify their voters. They are more than eager to regulate every aspect of our lives. Since they collect marriage license fees and extra tax from married couples, they should be behind it. Most politicians are lawyers and lawyers make a fortune during divorce proceedings.

The laws on marriage were originally written to promote a population for a growing nation. Since same sex unions don't produce a population there was no point in considering them.
(03-18-2014, 10:15 PM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2014, 02:00 PM)newsclippings Wrote: [ -> ]Where did you read me saying ignorant rednecks or inferiority? Now you're just adding things to this argument that I didn't even bring up. You don't like the law changing a definition? Why don't you consider that getting married means more for gay people than your demands for it not to change?

I don't take a position on the issue at all as it doesn't affect me. It was you who simplified the whole discussion to "equal rights" when it's not the case at all and then started discussing incest and bestiality.

(03-18-2014, 07:48 PM)ChristopherSea Wrote: [ -> ]I suppose politicians want to pacify their voters. They are more than eager to regulate every aspect of our lives. Since they collect marriage license fees and extra tax from married couples, they should be behind it. Most politicians are lawyers and lawyers make a fortune during divorce proceedings.

The laws on marriage were originally written to promote a population for a growing nation. Since same sex unions don't produce a population there was no point in considering them.

It makes sense. The divorce laws make separation difficult and painful.

Some old laws promote dead concepts. The world needs zero population growth at this time. We are outgrowing our resources.
(03-18-2014, 10:52 PM)ChristopherSea Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2014, 10:15 PM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2014, 02:00 PM)newsclippings Wrote: [ -> ]Where did you read me saying ignorant rednecks or inferiority? Now you're just adding things to this argument that I didn't even bring up. You don't like the law changing a definition? Why don't you consider that getting married means more for gay people than your demands for it not to change?

I don't take a position on the issue at all as it doesn't affect me. It was you who simplified the whole discussion to "equal rights" when it's not the case at all and then started discussing incest and bestiality.

(03-18-2014, 07:48 PM)ChristopherSea Wrote: [ -> ]I suppose politicians want to pacify their voters. They are more than eager to regulate every aspect of our lives. Since they collect marriage license fees and extra tax from married couples, they should be behind it. Most politicians are lawyers and lawyers make a fortune during divorce proceedings.

The laws on marriage were originally written to promote a population for a growing nation. Since same sex unions don't produce a population there was no point in considering them.

It makes sense. The divorce laws make separation difficult and painful.

Some old laws promote dead concepts. The world needs zero population growth at this time. We are outgrowing our resources.

From a global perspective you may correct but from a local perspective some may disagree with you. The current fertility rate in the US is 1.9% which means without Immigration the population would be shrinking. Sociologists predict that re.moving family incentives or splitting them with single and same sex couples would reduce it to 1.6% meanining the country would be "conquered through attrition " within a century.

Of course I think being conquered through attrition would be fascinating but some believe we should be trying to preserve our culture and values.

(03-18-2014, 07:16 PM)justcloudy Wrote: [ -> ]One interesting point that comes up not often enough in this debate is: why does the gvt have a hand to play in marriage at all?? Why do they care who we choose to partner up with, and why the hell do they regulate it? It'd be easier if it was totally unregulated by the law, but then once ppl marry in their religion or just in front of witnesses or whatever then they declare to the gvt that spousal rights should go to this person, and then it's done. (Then divorce would be revoking those rights.) That way religions wouldn't have to marry gays if they were against it, yet gays would be free to marry. Not sure I'm expressing myself well, but it's something to consider.

Marriage itself isn't technically regulated, just the state's recognition of it. This is required to set state fertility and domesticity programs.
Milo, I didn't take it there, cidermaid did. I was saying it's not the same thing.
(03-19-2014, 01:32 AM)newsclippings Wrote: [ -> ]Milo, I didn't take it there, cidermaid did. I was saying it's not the same thing.

The reason it is interesting though is because it directly contrasts with your statement that it is about equal rights, but what you meant was equal rights as long as they were people you approved of. You don't approve of incest and bestiality so you don't approve equal rights for them.

Continuing, and this is why I proposed that it isn't about equal rights at all - why are unions or married people entitled to rights that single people would not be?

If people wanted "equal rights" they would be fighting to abolish marriage. I would certainly support that type of equality.
Most states outlaw incest and bestiality. It's considered unhealthy and/or a threat to society. And I dunno. Maybe it'd be good if the government butt out. But at the moment I think allowing gay marriage is a more plausible and fair solution than the prospect of asking the conservative party to give up marriage altogether.
(03-19-2014, 03:13 AM)newsclippings Wrote: [ -> ]Most states outlaw incest and bestiality. It's considered unhealthy and/or a threat to society. And I dunno. Maybe it'd be good if the government butt out. But at the moment I think allowing gay marriage is a more plausible and fair solution than the prospect of asking the conservative party to give up marriage altogether.

First, most states outlaw same sex marriage as well and you don't let that stop you, why are you trying to deny incestuous love partners or cross-species unions?

You say the argument is about "equal" rights. They have equal rights now - equal to single people. Most familial concessions are in recognition of the increased economic strain of raising a family, a burden same sex couples don't share.

Also, regardless of what is easier shouldn't you be concerned about what is equal instead of lobbying to increase the inequality.

Finally, conservatives are actually not interested in state recognition of marriage as much as they are interested in the institute of marriage which is a separate religious institution.
I don't know how you can possibly equate same sex marriage with incest and bestiality. It's insulting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6