Posts: 3,035
Threads: 201
Joined: Aug 2006
KB
You stated as a valid reason for not allowing civil unions or gay marriage the fact that those couples cannot reproduce; by that logic all marriages that cannot reproduce are not valid, or else that is just an excuse for denying equal legal rights to a group of people because you personally do not approve of who they love and how they express that love. Either the inability to reproduce is a valid reason to deny marriage rights, or it isn't. To say it is a valid reason in the case of 2 men or 2 women, but not in the case of a man and a woman who cannot reproduce, is admitting that reproduction isn't really your core justification for denying these American citizens equal rights. Your spin on natural selection is a pretty poor line of defense for denying marriage rights to 10% of our society, unless you are going to apply the same logic to all marriages. You can't have it both ways.
I do not use my beliefs to deny you your natural right to the "pursuit of happiness" but you are using your beliefs to justify the denial of that same natural and constitutional right to a sizable portion of our state's population. I don't care who you love, how you love, or if you choose to register that relationship with the state, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult human. You, on the other hand, are trying to control those things things for others, and that is the core difference here. I can live with your views with the greatest indifference until you start using them to limit the natural rights of others, then I will do all legally, morally, and ethically possible to limit you in that pursuit.
Carol
Carol
Every time you feel yourself getting pulled into other people's nonsense, repeat these words: Not my circus, not my monkeys.
Polish Proverb
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Kalama Boy, I think you have injected a big issue in the Civil Union/Marriage debate that is false.
Marriage or Civil Union under Hawaii law, has absolutely nothing to do with sexual conduct. There is no statutory or implied sexual relation clause in the law. It is a contractual relationship to commit to each other. Nothing in Hawaii law or even religious marriage doctrine, says that sex is a component of marriage. As a matter of fact, heterosexual couples who engaged in sex must do so by consent. A legally married man and woman can be criminally charged with rape if sex is forced without consent. Marriage between man and women does not grant rights to sex any more or less than any man or woman.
Briging sexual conduct into the debate is not grounded in facts under the law or even under the vows of most religious marriage.
Also, the issue of homosexuality is false because most people opposed to same sex marriages or civil unions are not against homosexuality. You put all the people who oppose same sex marriage or civil unions on the basis of homosexuality into a room, and you leave a DVD of John Wayne Reads the Bible, The History of the American Dollar, and Sorority Girls Gone Wild, we all know which DVD will be watched until it wears out. So how can they be so against same sex commitments when sex is not a requirement, yet watch girl on girl until their hair falls out? Obviously they like homosexual sexual conduct when it gets them off.
Posts: 78
Threads: 8
Joined: Dec 2009
Again csgray, are you reading my posts? Please go back and read them carefuly, maybe even take a stab at answering my last question, mahalo.
I have never said I am against civil unions or gay marriage. I am not denying any rights to anyone, I am not trying to control anyone. I have said I understand and respect your views.
I am only expressing my personal beliefs on homosexuality. Can you respect them as I do yours?
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
Kalama, you asked "Do you think the real issue with homosexuals is about civil rights and benefits or is it actually about the absolute acceptance by society that they think the word marriage may bring to their beliefs?"
Let me take a stab at answering your question. I am a homosexual (it's not a belief, its what I am..how God made me). Do I care what society thinks about me or my relationship? Well, it would be nice if everyone loved me or approved of everything I do. In my opinion, however, people who live their lives always seeking the approval of others are not, in fact, living their living their lives...
My real issue is the fact that our state and nation's laws do not treat me and the person I am in a relationship with the same way they treat you and your special someone. If your other half is hospitalized, do you worry that you will be denied access to their hospital room because you're not "immediate family"? If your employer provides health benefits, odds are your spouse is covered too - but that isn't always true for gay partners (and when coverage is available, we have to pay tax on the benefit of partner coverage, while married people don't). The disparity in social security coverage has already been mentioned (if anything happens to me or my partner, the surviving party won't receive any of the social security benefits afforded to married spouses). I order to receive many of the protections automatically granted to a married couple, my partner and I had to spend hundreds of dollars in legal fees to draft documents detailing our wishes. I could go on and on... The real point to me is, if society is going to bestow tangible benefits to two people who decide to join their lives in a relationship, those benefits need to be bestowed on *all* couples, not just male/female couples. The arguments about children, polygamy, natural law, etc., etc. etc. are all immaterial. If Pat and Chris (a straight couple in a committed relationship) get societal benefits then Pat and Chris (a same sex couple in a committed relationship) should get those benefits too.
Posts: 210
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2008
@KeaauRich: My real issue is the fact that our state and nation's laws do not treat me and the person I am in a relationship with the same way they treat you and your special someone. If your other half is hospitalized, do you worry that you will be denied access to their hospital room because you're not "immediate family"? If your employer provides health benefits, odds are your spouse is covered too - but that isn't always true for gay partners (and when coverage is available, we have to pay tax on the benefit of partner coverage, while married people don't). The disparity in social security coverage has already been mentioned (if anything happens to me or my partner, the surviving party won't receive any of the social security benefits afforded to married spouses). I order to receive many of the protections automatically granted to a married couple, my partner and I had to spend hundreds of dollars in legal fees to draft documents detailing our wishes. I could go on and on... The real point to me is, if society is going to bestow tangible benefits to two people who decide to join their lives in a relationship, those benefits need to be bestowed on *all* couples, not just male/female couples. The arguments about children, polygamy, natural law, etc., etc. etc. are all immaterial. If Pat and Chris (a straight couple in a committed relationship) get societal benefits then Pat and Chris (a same sex couple in a committed relationship) should get those benefits too.
ME: What a terrific post...even if it made my heart cry! The opening question had me the rest just added to the sadness...I think everyone who truly supports civil unions should be as active in getting them recognized on a federal level so they affect things like Social Security in a positive way, and on a state level so they affect all other areas...like hospital visitation. Candidates that support this should be among those we choose when we go to the polls in November.
“A penny saved is a government oversight.”
"Q might have done the right thing for the wrong reason, perhaps we need a good kick in our complacency to get us ready for what's ahead" -- Captain Picard, to Guinan (Q Who?)
Posts: 78
Threads: 8
Joined: Dec 2009
Hi KeaauRich, when you said "those benefits need to be bestowed on all COUPLES not just male/female COUPLES" did you mean just 2 people? Would you deny the right to marry or any other civl rights if it was Pat and Chris and then Charlie? Or will you only chose to allow those rights to 2 people?
Maybe we should take unions and marriages out of the equation altogether and give EVERYONE these civil rights at BIRTH.
When that finaly happens and everyones rights are exactly the same will you still want to call same sex unions marriage? If so why?
Mahalo for all the thoughtful posts.
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
@Critterlover - in my head, I just saw the commercial that is needed -
a man/women is in a hospital bed.... you see their partner at their bedside holding their hand.... and then the mean doctor comes in and says "get out. You are not immediate family"....
The reality is we all can have our favorite spiritual adviser preform a commitment ceremony (legal, not legal, matrimony or not) but it is the civil unions bill that would have guaranteed the above scenario resulted in
"I am so glad you are here to help make the decisions on care."
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
Hi Kalama,
You have a talent for injecting red herring arguments (intended or otherwise...) into a fairly straight-forward (you should pardon the term) discussion. Civil unions is all about striving towards parity with the legal (and again, I stress the word "legal") benefits conferred by the government on married couples. When I say "couples" I mean "couples" as in two people (the primary definition of the word "couple"). Now if the government decides to allow three or more people to legally marry each other, we'll press for equality there too, but I don't see that happening with or without civil unions.
I'm not sure what you mean by granting rights at birth...how would that work in my hospital visitation example? I guess we could come at your outcome another way: not granting any automatic legal benefits to any marriage (gay or straight). In that case, we would have equity and there would be no legal need for civil unions and/or marriage (although couples could engage in the practices if they wanted the social recognition of their relationship). Under this scenario, all individuals could meet with lawyers to set up documented directives for medical visitations, benefits designations, inheritance, etc. -- just like Don and I and other gay couples have to do now (but hopefully without the very real threat of legal challenges from disgruntled family members and others that gays currently face <note: for the record Don's family and mine could not be more supportive of our relationship>)
And as for the term "marriage", I don't get as hung up on that as some people. If you want to call gay unions by a different term than straight unions, I can live with that as long as the legal benefits are the same. But many more strident than I would argue that any difference in terms denotes a difference of importance. Once I win the benefits battle, then I might take up the semantics battle. First things first...
Aloha
Posts: 210
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2008
@KapohoCat: a man/women is in a hospital bed.... you see their partner at their bedside holding their hand.... and then the mean doctor comes in and says "get out. You are not immediate family"....
You know, that is a great visual! I would turn it around and make it a 'husband and wife' and when the wife asks the doctor what he/she means 'you are not immediate family' have the doctor refer them to some new law that nullifies rights to all, equally! While I would not like to be denied access to my husband were he sick, or vice versa, I would also fight for my daughter in law to have access to my daughter, and vice versa, in the same situation. I think those who want to defend equality should stop taking the perspective of denying rights and perhaps talk about nullifying the existing rights TO ALL. To me, it is always easy to dismiss oneself from something being denied to another but when you take something away, or deny something to someone who has it, that changes the dynamic altogether.
I am not advocating changing law...to nullify rights...I am merely using the premise to show that when someone is comfortable in their own life, while they may have compassion for another not enjoying the same comfort, they are more likely to be apathetic until it directly affects them! At this point, after the election is over, and I have some free time, I may look at how I can spend my time educating myself on how to make a difference in this area. It just galls me.
“A penny saved is a government oversight.”
"Q might have done the right thing for the wrong reason, perhaps we need a good kick in our complacency to get us ready for what's ahead" -- Captain Picard, to Guinan (Q Who?)
Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
Kalama Boy: I also believe in natural selection. I'm not gay, but I am a lover of the scientific method, the works of Darwin, etc. And I am appalled at your ignorance regarding this topic. Natural selection alters a species randomly and then that species survives or thrives or dies based on whether that alteration provided an advantage in a given environment. Homo sapiens individual coupling preferences have nothing to do with this process. Since the dawn of time, 10% of the population of homo sapiens has been gay. In every population group. Consistently. So it seems that, since 1 in 10 of the species is gay, it must be natural. So maybe we ought to live and let live, and perhaps structure our society in a way that is fair to this worthy and deserving minority.
|
