Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Chris wrote: "I think what is happening here, and it only 'clicked' with me a few days ago, is that everyone here is viewing the gay marriage thing from their own country/state's perspective."Actually I'm viewing it from a straightforward letting people live their lives perspective and it has precisely zero to do with where I'm from, which is merely an accident of geography - and it's facile to say otherwise. My geographical location does not affect my human views, although I'll admit I wish the weather would perk up a bit sometimes.
Mary wrote: and therefore causes some to feel it is icky, and they spend all their time trying to find other reasons against it to validate that icky feeling. ( watch out Chris, I'm..."As you say hetero couples can engage in the exact same sex acts, but for those who think it's disgusting or and wrong, they will think that of all the couples who engage. This is where the right and wrong and acceptable and not acceptable ‘line’ is hard to define, and because we are all individuals we all have our 'line' in different places.
Your use of the word Icky seems to me as though you are trying to dress something up that you or others find distasteful but without really saying what you mean. ('till now).
I bit like someone saying' I accidentally chopped her to pieces with the axe I was holding'.
Is it not possible to support gay marriage and still find something distasteful?
Shanna wrote: explain how the copy pasted article supports the argument against gay marriage, I don't see it. ."
...... once again, it has nothing to do with gay marriage 'per say', that is just a by product.
I do not want to see marriage defined in any other way that it has been for more time than I can remember. In fact I would like to see us return to some sort of Victorian values, here in the Uk. Maybe oz the the rest of the world has it's own issues, like the use of guns, but in the UK some sort of Victorian values would be good.
Shannon, Victorian values? You mean where women were property and marriages were arranged to fit social status, financial gain and to produce a legitimate heir? Where upper class women were put in a gilded cage and restricted from professions and higher educational pursuits and the tight to vote?Where lower classes suffered in poverty, where the women worked in much lower paying jobs to support their families and children worked in factories? Where orphanages were often hell holes? Those Victorian values? What ever romanticized version you have created from media or books, just didn't exist.
Michael wrote: "Chris wrote: "I think what is happening here, and it only 'clicked' with me a few days ago, is that everyone here is viewing the gay marriage thing from their own country/state's perspective."Act..."
The start of the discussion was the sad state of affairs in my country towards gay couples, but I have no problem including any country that is denying people rights in my argument.
Not sure why this is a sudden epiphany...?
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: explain how the copy pasted article supports the argument against gay marriage, I don't see it. ."
...... once again, it has nothing to do with gay marriage 'per say', that is just ..."
So, you're against interracial marriage too then...?
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: explain how the copy pasted article supports the argument against gay marriage, I don't see it. ."
...... once again, it has nothing to do with gay marriage 'per say', that is just ..."
Aside from more people wearing top hats and waist coats, I'm not seeing a huge upside to victorian values.
Mary wrote: "Shannon,
I do not believe religion causes all or most wars. I believe greed, lust, power and revenge does. But the fact that even 1 person would die or 1 war would be fought in the name of a god bo..."
Thank you, Mary, for your answer. I'm incredibly glad that you don't think religion caused all wars or most wars. Are you a history buff, by chance?
I'm talking about arguments put forth, though, not by you but by others. People who have believed this and argued it's "truth" ... even as a reason for people to turn from their faith.
You weren't a part of that, but I do appreciate your willingness to respond.
I do not believe religion causes all or most wars. I believe greed, lust, power and revenge does. But the fact that even 1 person would die or 1 war would be fought in the name of a god bo..."
Thank you, Mary, for your answer. I'm incredibly glad that you don't think religion caused all wars or most wars. Are you a history buff, by chance?
I'm talking about arguments put forth, though, not by you but by others. People who have believed this and argued it's "truth" ... even as a reason for people to turn from their faith.
You weren't a part of that, but I do appreciate your willingness to respond.
Mary wrote: "Shannon, Victorian values? You mean where women were property and marriages were arranged to fit social status, financial gain and to produce a legitimate heir? Where upper class women were put in ..."
Very, very confused here, Mary.
When have I discussed "Victorian values"?
I'm not aware that I have.
????
Very, very confused here, Mary.
When have I discussed "Victorian values"?
I'm not aware that I have.
????
Mary wrote: "Shannon, Victorian values? You mean where women were property and marriages were arranged to fit social status, financial gain and to produce a legitimate heir? Where upper class women were put in ..."
And, just as an aside ....
I have no romanticized views regarding "Victorian values" or anything of the sort. Sort of funny, though .... To think someone is, for some reason, accusing me of mentioning Victorian values in a positive light and telling me I have a romantic notion of what those values entailed.
You see ... I'm big into history and big into rights.
Major dichotomy here.
And, just as an aside ....
I have no romanticized views regarding "Victorian values" or anything of the sort. Sort of funny, though .... To think someone is, for some reason, accusing me of mentioning Victorian values in a positive light and telling me I have a romantic notion of what those values entailed.
You see ... I'm big into history and big into rights.
Major dichotomy here.
Sorry Shannon... My mistake. Chris was the one responding with a desire to return to Victorian values. I apologize.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Shannon, Victorian values? You mean where women were property and marriages were arranged to fit social status, financial gain and to produce a legitimate heir? Where upper class women..."I think there was some confusion. Chris was talking about a return to Victorian values in a post on the previous page right under one of your posts, and your name got typed in by mistake. It's good to know that you're familiar with history and understand the rights that everyone would lose if we were to head back down that road, though.
Mary wrote: "Sorry Shannon... My mistake. Chris was the one responding with a desire to return to Victorian values. I apologize."
Ah.... Thank you for the clarification.
Ah.... Thank you for the clarification.
Heather wrote: "I think there was some confusion. Chris was talking about a return to Victorian values in a post on the previous page right under one of your posts, and your name got typed in by mistake. It's good to know that you're familiar with history and understand the rights that everyone would lose if we were to head back down that road, though. "
Oh, I'm familiar and understand. Perfectly. In fact, several months back, cHriS and I had a very boisterous debate over women's rights, didn't we, cHriS? ;)
Oh, I'm familiar and understand. Perfectly. In fact, several months back, cHriS and I had a very boisterous debate over women's rights, didn't we, cHriS? ;)
cHriS wrote: "Shannon, If two people of either sex, the same or different want to live together indefinitely as companions to each other, they have no rights.
Should we not be campaigning for them, are their rights not just a valid as any other rights."
Hey, there.... :)
I don't know, cHriS. I've not given this aspect a lot of thought, in that, I've not gone through pros and cons, etc....
However, I can tell you this ....
This has been in the back of my mind, off and on. Someone, though I can't remember who, recently put out an idea. A civil union of sorts for all; a religious marriage for those who want their "union" blessed by the church. I find that idea fascinating, because ....
I know I had two elderly maiden great-great-aunts who never married and lived together all their lives. They took my great-grandmother in and raised her when her mother died. I don't think this happens as much these days, but .... I honestly have wondered, ... what rights should people in those circumstances have ... if any. I don't know. But, in all honestly, I've also thought about the rights of people who want to marry more than one person. No, I'm not throwing that out there as a reason to be against gay marriage. I'm for it. I think, often, people throw that out as a reason against it. Anyway, .... If we're talking about rights, the rights of people who truly love one another and want to have a commitment, why is polygamy off limits? I'm not talking creepy polygamy ... 50-something year old men who "marry" 13-year olds. Though, I wonder, is that why it's off limits? But, if people really existed ... two men and a woman ... a man and two women ... who are of age and in a healthy relationship, why is their union considered illegal? Though, hmmm..., that gets us into judging a relationship ... healthy or not ... plenty of heterosexuals are in unhealthy relationships and shouldn't get married, but they do. So, let's take the word "healthy" out ... of age .... Why?
Hmmm....
Something I've wondered, but it's not something I've really gone into ... to research or really think about. Would the whole civil unions idea for all, ... those who are of age and consenting ..., be a way of assuring rights to all?
Should we not be campaigning for them, are their rights not just a valid as any other rights."
Hey, there.... :)
I don't know, cHriS. I've not given this aspect a lot of thought, in that, I've not gone through pros and cons, etc....
However, I can tell you this ....
This has been in the back of my mind, off and on. Someone, though I can't remember who, recently put out an idea. A civil union of sorts for all; a religious marriage for those who want their "union" blessed by the church. I find that idea fascinating, because ....
I know I had two elderly maiden great-great-aunts who never married and lived together all their lives. They took my great-grandmother in and raised her when her mother died. I don't think this happens as much these days, but .... I honestly have wondered, ... what rights should people in those circumstances have ... if any. I don't know. But, in all honestly, I've also thought about the rights of people who want to marry more than one person. No, I'm not throwing that out there as a reason to be against gay marriage. I'm for it. I think, often, people throw that out as a reason against it. Anyway, .... If we're talking about rights, the rights of people who truly love one another and want to have a commitment, why is polygamy off limits? I'm not talking creepy polygamy ... 50-something year old men who "marry" 13-year olds. Though, I wonder, is that why it's off limits? But, if people really existed ... two men and a woman ... a man and two women ... who are of age and in a healthy relationship, why is their union considered illegal? Though, hmmm..., that gets us into judging a relationship ... healthy or not ... plenty of heterosexuals are in unhealthy relationships and shouldn't get married, but they do. So, let's take the word "healthy" out ... of age .... Why?
Hmmm....
Something I've wondered, but it's not something I've really gone into ... to research or really think about. Would the whole civil unions idea for all, ... those who are of age and consenting ..., be a way of assuring rights to all?
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shannon, If two people of either sex, the same or different want to live together indefinitely as companions to each other, they have no rights. Should we not be campaigning for the..."
I have no problem if the church wants to claim 'marriage' as their word and then we designate all marriages without the religious stuff as 'civil unions', and that becomes the legal term, but it's got to be an all or none thing or we are right back where we started.
Because, I don't know any gay couples that are devastated about not getting religious approval of their marriage. They just want their family to have the same legal protections/rights/ etc as the rest of us.
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shannon, If two people of either sex, the same or different want to live together indefinitely as companions to each other, they have no rights. Should we not be campaigning for the..."
Interesting questions, Shannon. I would assume that if your aunts are sisters, and if that were the case they would have the next of kin as the main beneficiary, meaning the other sister. However, I'm also not a lawyer, so I could very well be wrong.
I've always wondered why polygamy and polyandry are illegal; after all, look at the biological evidence behind it. When sperm from two different men are in a woman's womb, the sperm speeds up, thus increasing the likelihood of the resulting implantation being the most viable child the two can create. The only real drawbacks that I can see are your statement and tense relations between the two wives/husbands. Does anyone have an answer?
Heather wrote: "I would assume that if your aunts are sisters, and if that were the case they would have the next of kin as the main beneficiary, meaning the other sister. "
Oh, they lived forever ago. Late 1800's, I'd say, into early 1900's. They raised my great-grandmother through her teen years, and she had my grandmother around 1920-ish, etc....
So, the aunts, for many reasons, wouldn't have had many rights at all.
Oh, they lived forever ago. Late 1800's, I'd say, into early 1900's. They raised my great-grandmother through her teen years, and she had my grandmother around 1920-ish, etc....
So, the aunts, for many reasons, wouldn't have had many rights at all.
Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "I would assume that if your aunts are sisters, and if that were the case they would have the next of kin as the main beneficiary, meaning the other sister. "Oh, they lived forever..."
You're right; with the misogynistic rules that were in place at the time, the other would have been lucky to get anything when one died. It would have gone to the next male, and then they would have to hope he would be charitable enough to distribute some money to them and let them live on the property.
I have to admit I do not particularly like the idea if plural marriage, so i don't participate. but I can not really object to it legally for the same reasons as I don't object to gay marriage. In fact, legalizing plural marriage would probably save the tax payers money, as in places like Utah, the wives after the first legal one often apply for and receive welfare benefits as single parents. I do not like some groups using their fundamentalism to force young underage women to marry, but if all are consenting adults I really don't care.
Mary wrote: "I have to admit I do not particularly like the idea if plural marriage, so i don't participate. but I can not really object to it legally for the same reasons as I don't object to gay marriage. In..."I'm in the same boat; I could not deal with a plural marriage, but I can understand and respect those who would participate. Same goes with gay marriage; I prefer the company of a man, but my preference shouldn't dictate others' rights.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: explain how the copy pasted article supports the argument against gay marriage, I don't see it. ."
...... once again, it has nothing to do with gay marriage 'per say', that is just ..."
These things simply cannot be a by product, homosexual individuals are not permitted to marry in the UK, there can be no by product of this non-existent.
I find it odd that your answer to the lack of commitment in straight relationships is to deny the ability to commit with in a marriage, to another group...
Again I point you to Canada where homosexuals have been permitted to exercise equal rights and marry for years, as a case study of sorts... I'm not sure what you're getting at with the use of guns.
Mary wrote: "I have to admit I do not particularly like the idea if plural marriage, so i don't participate. but I can not really object to it legally for the same reasons as I don't object to gay marriage. In..."I have no problem legally speaking regarding plural marriage provided it's consenting adults and not just polygamy, but I do think the emotional issues might be more than most can handle.
Consenting adults is the key for me.
Shanna wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: explain how the copy pasted article supports the argument against gay marriage, I don't see it. ."
...... once again, it has nothing to do with gay marriage 'per say',..."
weird how all chris' arguments against gay marriage don't seem to have anything to do with gay marriage...?
and my home state has been legalized and we have yet to fall off the face of the planet, my wife has not been carried off by hordes of lesbians or suffered god's wrath in any way.
Only difference has been I got invited to a few more parties, as some of my gay friends celebrated their weddings.
Personnally, i think they could be no world without both. For me, Science is important because we can see nowadays where we are left because of it and what it has meant in our evolution, but i think religion is as important for it not only balances it, but put a slow button to it. People tends to get a little bit carried away when in comes to discoveries, religion brought that ethical question about humanity that permits science to be as humanly possible as it can be. science scares me a little bit and religion keeps me grounded about it.i could be wrong but that is my belief...
Travis wrote: weird how all chris' arguments against gay marriage don't seem to have anything to do with gay marriage...?..."
not that difficult to comprehend really, unless it does not suit you to understand.
If you want a football team to win and it does, the fallout is that the other team has to lose. Unless you can settle on a draw. And I think here in the UK we have done that and I guess the majority of both sides are quite happy. But there will always be those from both sides who want 'all or nothing'.
Shanna wrote: These things simply cannot be a by product, homosexual individuals are not permitted to marry in the UK, there can be no by product of this non-existent.,..."But there is, if you cannot understand that, fair enough. If you don't want to understand it, I guess that is also fair enough. But it does not alter things.
You are excluding the other side of the 'debate' with the pretence that this is an automatic right and should not even be debated.
Here you are in the majority, in the real world you are not. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I am saying you need to consider both sides if you want this to be resolved amicably.
Heather wrote: and if that were the case they would have the next of kin as the main beneficiary, meaning the other sister. However, I'm also not a lawyer, so I could very well be wrong.."
You would be correct if they were the only two, but if there were another six brothers and sisters then they all could put in a claim to the estate.
Shannon wrote: A civil union of sorts for all; a religious marriage for those who want their "union" blessed by the church. I find that idea fascinating, because ..."It's almost like that here now. But a male and female can't have a civil union because marriage is available to them.
What has happened here in the Uk and still happens. A couple get together, live together, time moves on, maybe a child is born, years pass, 25 30 and more. Something happens to one of them. The one left has very little or no automatic rights to the other persons estate. That is why those couples wanted changes to the law. And for gay couples the law was changed, so that they could have all the rights a married couple have.
It was 'not' changed for any other couples.
Then somewhere along the line, some gay couples, having got equal rights wanted to be married just like straight couples, that is where the objections arose.
Mean while all the other couples that were not gay, were left out in the cold.
Changing one thing has a knock on effect and some where a line has to be drawn, otherwise we get taken from the sublime to the ridicules.
Travis wrote: I have no problem if the church wants to claim 'marriage' as their word and then we designate all marriages without the religious stuff as 'civil unions', and that becomes the legal term, but it's got to be an all or none thing or we are right back where we started...."I agree. That would solve everything. Now we have to convince Shanna.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: I have no problem if the church wants to claim 'marriage' as their word and then we designate all marriages without the religious stuff as 'civil unions', and that becomes the legal t..."It's not the word folks! it's the equal rights under the law. When marriage and civil unions are equal in rights and responsibilities for the couple then I'll be happy. They are not.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: weird how all chris' arguments against gay marriage don't seem to have anything to do with gay marriage...?..."
not that difficult to comprehend really, unless it does not suit you..."
You keep arguing that by giving one groups rights (one team a win/favourite child concert) that necessarily mean the abrogation of another groups rights(one team will lose/other childs recital) yet you offer nothing on how this will be. It is not a choice between two things,
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: These things simply cannot be a by product, homosexual individuals are not permitted to marry in the UK, there can be no by product of this non-existent.,..."But there is, if you ca..."
It's not a matter of understanding.
It's that you are against gay marriage, but all your examples against it concern straight marriage.
It's like you said your football team example and ended it with 'and that's why golf is a bad sport!'
It comes across that you are building a really good case against straight marriage.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: These things simply cannot be a by product, homosexual individuals are not permitted to marry in the UK, there can be no by product of this non-existent.,..."But there is, if you cannot understand that, fair enough. If you don't want to understand it, I guess that is also fair enough. But it does not alter things.
You have not explained how it harms heterosexuals marrying only contended that it does. How does homosexuals marrying and having equal rights under the marriage laws hurt anything else. Please don't resort to the you don't understand, you have not explained. I'm still curious why lack of commitment among heterosexuals is a reason to deny homosexuals seeking to make a commitment? And why you seem to think it's one or the other?
You are excluding the other side of the 'debate' with the pretence that this is an automatic right and should not even be debated.
I don't think it is a pretense that compus mentis adults are all equal and should not have their rights abrogated to please other adults for flimsy, largely religous, objections. The fact that they, are, denied what is an automatic right for others and that there is debate is just sad.
Here you are in the majority, in the real world you are not. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I am saying you need to consider both sides if you want this to be resolved amicably. "
I have no idea on the "real" world stats, but argument ad populum is not reason to deny people rights. It was an argument for slavery and against suffragettes and we don't hold a moral argument for those, it's not a moral argument for this.
Let's look at some facts ... if people are up for that.
cHriS has said that civil unions offer the same rights in the UK as marriage. Is that true or not? I don't know. If so, it would seem to be about the word in the UK, but I don't know if the rights are the same there.
It did make me think about about civil unions here, in the US. What are the differences?
http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/ma...
Found the last point to be fascinating.
Regardless of what's going on in the UK, people who entered into a civil union in Vermont don't have the same rights. And, .... I remember how that went down. Vermont was the first state to allow them, if I remember correctly, and a bunch of people came to Vermont, from all over the US, to get a civil union. I was catering at the time, as well as teaching. Catered at least a few receptions of gay couples who came from all over the place to have a civil union on this side of the country. Hmmm.... Some glitches.
cHriS has said that civil unions offer the same rights in the UK as marriage. Is that true or not? I don't know. If so, it would seem to be about the word in the UK, but I don't know if the rights are the same there.
It did make me think about about civil unions here, in the US. What are the differences?
http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/ma...
Found the last point to be fascinating.
Regardless of what's going on in the UK, people who entered into a civil union in Vermont don't have the same rights. And, .... I remember how that went down. Vermont was the first state to allow them, if I remember correctly, and a bunch of people came to Vermont, from all over the US, to get a civil union. I was catering at the time, as well as teaching. Catered at least a few receptions of gay couples who came from all over the place to have a civil union on this side of the country. Hmmm.... Some glitches.
Shannon wrote: "Let's look at some facts ... if people are up for that.cHriS has said that civil unions offer the same rights in the UK as marriage. Is that true or not? I don't know. If so, it would seem to ..."
That and gay marriage/civil unions are only legal in about 9 states in the USA.
So, in 41 states your family suddenly doesn't count, it's not considered legal or real.
That part is particularly wrong to me.
What other right has that magical quality?
and it's not like the states are all together, so they have a good sized reservation to stay on.
Shanna wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: I have no problem if the church wants to claim 'marriage' as their word and then we designate all marriages without the religious stuff as 'civil unions', and that becom..."Unfortunately, for alot of folk on the religious side, it is the word and they have a white knuckle grip on it.
So, since they don't want to give gay couples too many rights with civil unions, so we have to go after the word, because it seems to be the only way to get people equal rights.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: These things simply cannot be a by product, homosexual individuals are not permitted to marry in the UK, there can be no by product of this non-existent.,..."But there is, if you ca..."
If you were the one being denied rights, if it was your family that was being treated as not worth being treated like other families, your main concern would be to keep things amicable?
"Separate but equal" didn't work after the civil war... Because it was not equal. The same applies here in the US for civil unions and marriage.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "That and gay marriage/civil unions are only legal in about 9 states in the USA."
Oh, for sure. I knew that was an issue. I didn't know one had to, for example, establish residency in Vermont in order to dissolve a civil union that was granted in Vermont. That's a huge big deal ... if as many gay couples end things as heterosexual. How would one of the couples from wherever end their union if they didn't have the megabucks needed to quit jobs, find jobs, relocate and buy property or rent, etc.... Though, I suppose, if they had enough money, they'd not have to relocate, just buy property of some sort in order to establish residency. While that's more about ending a union than creating one, it does point out a glaring issue. When it comes to rights, heterosexuals who are married have a right denied to homosexual couples, with the Vermont civil union. The first can seek a divorce in any state, whereas....
Though, ultimately, I'm fairly shocked by this information, now that I think about it. Vermont is such a liberal state, understatement. I find it somehow hard to believe the legislators wouldn't have rectified this. Introduce a law, take testimony, vote, etc.... Why wouldn't they? The only possible reasons would be .... Money. Getting people to establish residency. Fairly cynical of me to think that. Or, ... is it possible that there's some law that would trump such a thing? Some, I don't know what .... That would take more research and not sure I'm interested. Even though NOW is reputable, I'm feeling that might need verification. I mean, .... How does that even make sense? If they didn't need to be residents in order to attain the union, why would they need to be residents in order to dissolve it? And, I distinctly remember couples coming from all over the place to get the unions. What the heck? Did they establish residency and I don't remember that? Find that doubtful.
But, ultimately, this is a side issue. Just found it interesting ... never heard that was a problem before.
Oh, for sure. I knew that was an issue. I didn't know one had to, for example, establish residency in Vermont in order to dissolve a civil union that was granted in Vermont. That's a huge big deal ... if as many gay couples end things as heterosexual. How would one of the couples from wherever end their union if they didn't have the megabucks needed to quit jobs, find jobs, relocate and buy property or rent, etc.... Though, I suppose, if they had enough money, they'd not have to relocate, just buy property of some sort in order to establish residency. While that's more about ending a union than creating one, it does point out a glaring issue. When it comes to rights, heterosexuals who are married have a right denied to homosexual couples, with the Vermont civil union. The first can seek a divorce in any state, whereas....
Though, ultimately, I'm fairly shocked by this information, now that I think about it. Vermont is such a liberal state, understatement. I find it somehow hard to believe the legislators wouldn't have rectified this. Introduce a law, take testimony, vote, etc.... Why wouldn't they? The only possible reasons would be .... Money. Getting people to establish residency. Fairly cynical of me to think that. Or, ... is it possible that there's some law that would trump such a thing? Some, I don't know what .... That would take more research and not sure I'm interested. Even though NOW is reputable, I'm feeling that might need verification. I mean, .... How does that even make sense? If they didn't need to be residents in order to attain the union, why would they need to be residents in order to dissolve it? And, I distinctly remember couples coming from all over the place to get the unions. What the heck? Did they establish residency and I don't remember that? Find that doubtful.
But, ultimately, this is a side issue. Just found it interesting ... never heard that was a problem before.
I would love to live in a world - where science and religion go hand in hand, where they are strengths of each other, where they compliment each other, where religion is not used in the games of politics and power, and where science is used for constructive, not destructive purposes.
Travis wrote: If you were the one being denied rights..."I just finished watching a tv debate about: 'should civil partnerships be extended as a right to all other couples and not just gay people.
This is a Uk debate and may only be relevant to the Uk although the sentiment would apply, if this was being considered elsewhere.
Interestingly there were many different points of view, such as.....
One girl said she would rather have a civil partnership that a marriage to her boyfriend, because the word partnership makes the relationship sound more equal and she does not want to be known as Mrs.
A gay man said he would not like to see civil partnerships extended beyond the gay community as he wanted it to be given time to embed it's self within the gay community to become known as a gay thing, and to extend it could devalue it’s meaning.
There were other objections about extending civil partnerships and reasons why they should be extended. For example to a carer and the person being cared for.
Just as some want to keep the word marriage for a man and woman, it seems that some parts of the gay community also want to keep the ‘civil partnership’ title to define a gay relationship. At the same time another well known gay activist, wanted civil partnerships extended to everyone.
My question here is……………… if you support gay marriage and not just gay partnerships (all rights being equal) , should civil partnerships be extended to everyone or as some gay people want it; kept as a gay ‘thing’ so that it has meaning to a gay relationship?
Easy, extend it to all. Next question.
cHriS wrote :"My question here is……………… if you support gay marriage and not just gay partnerships (all rights being equal) , should civil partnerships be extended to everyone or as some gay people want it; kept as a gay ‘thing’ so that it has meaning to a gay relationship?" Of course! why on earth not? Consenting adults should be able to choose and all options available. But what ever the selection all the rights AND responsibilities should equal regardless of the sexuality of those involved.
Essentially all marriages are "civil unions" one cannot just go to a church and say a few words, and ta da... paperwork must filed with local governmental authorities for it to have a valid legal standing.
Is that your bug bear, that homosexuals in the UK have this civil union, that you can't? Is turn around fair play?
cerebus wrote: "Easy, extend it to all. Next question."
Hey...! I asked some questions that haven't been answered. Could always tackle those.
Hey...! I asked some questions that haven't been answered. Could always tackle those.
Travis wrote: So, in 41 states your family suddenly doesn't count, it's not considered legal or real.."Good point, but it is a good point from your perspective; many people in the other 41 states may still be concidering the issues or they may have a reason which they feel more strongly about that the gay issue.
You may feel that their reasons can't be justified and you may be correct, but again that is you looking at it from a non religious point of view. If you think that they should not take their religion so seriously on this issue, again you are right. But if some just want to preserve the word and meaning of what we have come to think of as marriage, at least during the last 100 or so years, while at the same time giving the same legal rights to everybody, you are wrong to not let them............in my opinion.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: So, in 41 states your family suddenly doesn't count, it's not considered legal or real.."Good point, but it is a good point from your perspective; many people in the other 41 states..."
Then let them preserve it amoungst themselves, and leave others out of it.
Shanna wrote: Then let them preserve it amoungst themselves, and leave others out of it. ..."
............I think something called a 'vote' may be needed. You believe in the vote don't you.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Probably, a bit like playing the race card don't you think?"
I've never denied the use of emotive language. In fact, I've admitted it until the cows came home and have given various apologies for it in the past.
Regarding the race card, I was wrong for saying what I said, in part. People, despite wanting to pretend it didn't happen, were horrible to the Indian man last summer ... even saying things like ... I don't understand you, you make no sense, you're ruining the thread and ... asked him to stop talking. Several people. Gary cautioned people. I got ticked and said so. You weren't part of that, exactly. You were part of the ... don't talk to him ... Godwin's ... don't talk to him ... contingent.
Race has been an issue here, in my opinion. Not often. But, it has. And, ... not many people jumped in to say ... whoa ... that's inappropriate ... giving a man from India crap for not being great at English.
When I responded to you that day, lots of different things were in my head ... all of the hypocrisy ... by many ... that just frosts my cake. I mentioned Travis telling me to ... Stop Talking! ... every time I said, "Not all," ... and you went down that path ... no one is telling you to stop talking, Shannon, ... no one has ever ... my brain went to Maria ... my putting my heart and thought into a particular response and Maria saying, "Do you drink when you post?" And, yeah, when I read it and since, it's ticked me off. How many times, over and over, have I discussed my ancestry ... something like, I don't know 25. Interestingly, there have been two people who Maria didn't understand and who she called out for not making sense. The man from India and myself. Now, of course, that doesn't mean she's racist. That only means she didn't take the time to try to understand a man from a foreign country and the fact that, from time to time, she likes to give me a poke. Given my ancestry and discrimination I've faced from other people, in life, in the past, it's a sore subject. Something I've admitted, over and over ... in order to a) show my blind spot and b) apologize.
It was wrong to include it in a response to you and wrong to assume Maria threw out a racist comment when she was most likely just stirring the pot in order to see how I'd react.
React, I did. Late. And, I reacted poorly.
My fault.
I'm sorry.
Finally, you've not answered the questions....