Nokraenom2008-11-15 11:40:58
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 12 2008, 11:28 PM) 581690
What I would like however, is for people who have equal rights to recognize that they have equal rights. And I would like them to recognize that people are allowed to have definitions of marriage that are stable and consistant, and that wishing to keep marriage to mean the union of a Husband and Wife, is not an act of biggotry or hate.
Seriously, when did the right to use the word Marriage (instead of civil union, or domestic partner) == right to vote == right to a fair trial == right to fair compensation for work.
Seriously, when did the right to use the word Marriage (instead of civil union, or domestic partner) == right to vote == right to a fair trial == right to fair compensation for work.
This is an argument with which I take issue.
Equals rights means equal recognition under the law. Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, regardless of the equivalence of technical details. Here's a similar circumstance in America's past: at one point, "colored people" had their own water fountains that were distinct from white people's water fountains. At one point, people of different skin color attended separate, but equal!, schools. On a technical level everything seems equal: the water coming from the separate water fountains is the same, and the curriculum being taught at segregated public schools is also equal. However, we readily recognize in these cases that separate is inherently unequal, and the issue of marriage v. civil unions is no different (even though ostensibly only a matter of terminology - at least on the state level in California, as the distinction holds a large series of unsolved legal/tax ramifications in federal law). If the government, being an institution with a vested interest in equality for all citizens, uses the term marriage to refer to the unions of one group of people, then it must be obligated to do so for all groups of citizens.
Diamondais2008-11-15 16:32:57
QUOTE(Nokraenom @ Nov 15 2008, 06:40 AM) 582561
This is an argument with which I take issue.
Equals rights means equal recognition under the law. Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, regardless of the equivalence of technical details. Here's a similar circumstance in America's past: at one point, "colored people" had their own water fountains that were distinct from white people's water fountains. At one point, people of different skin color attended separate, but equal!, schools. On a technical level everything seems equal: the water coming from the separate water fountains is the same, and the curriculum being taught at segregated public schools is also equal. However, we readily recognize in these cases that separate is inherently unequal, and the issue of marriage v. civil unions is no different (even though ostensibly only a matter of terminology - at least on the state level in California, as the distinction holds a large series of unsolved legal/tax ramifications in federal law). If the government, being an institution with a vested interest in equality for all citizens, uses the term marriage to refer to the unions of one group of people, then it must be obligated to do so for all groups of citizens.
Equals rights means equal recognition under the law. Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, regardless of the equivalence of technical details. Here's a similar circumstance in America's past: at one point, "colored people" had their own water fountains that were distinct from white people's water fountains. At one point, people of different skin color attended separate, but equal!, schools. On a technical level everything seems equal: the water coming from the separate water fountains is the same, and the curriculum being taught at segregated public schools is also equal. However, we readily recognize in these cases that separate is inherently unequal, and the issue of marriage v. civil unions is no different (even though ostensibly only a matter of terminology - at least on the state level in California, as the distinction holds a large series of unsolved legal/tax ramifications in federal law). If the government, being an institution with a vested interest in equality for all citizens, uses the term marriage to refer to the unions of one group of people, then it must be obligated to do so for all groups of citizens.
Don't forget there was a girl side to a school, and a boys side. They weren't allowed to enter through the same doors.
Saran2008-11-15 17:09:11
Daganev2008-11-16 02:35:00
QUOTE(Nokraenom @ Nov 15 2008, 03:40 AM) 582561
This is an argument with which I take issue.
Equals rights means equal recognition under the law. Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, regardless of the equivalence of technical details. Here's a similar circumstance in America's past: at one point, "colored people" had their own water fountains that were distinct from white people's water fountains. At one point, people of different skin color attended separate, but equal!, schools. On a technical level everything seems equal: the water coming from the separate water fountains is the same, and the curriculum being taught at segregated public schools is also equal. However, we readily recognize in these cases that separate is inherently unequal, and the issue of marriage v. civil unions is no different (even though ostensibly only a matter of terminology - at least on the state level in California, as the distinction holds a large series of unsolved legal/tax ramifications in federal law). If the government, being an institution with a vested interest in equality for all citizens, uses the term marriage to refer to the unions of one group of people, then it must be obligated to do so for all groups of citizens.
Equals rights means equal recognition under the law. Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, regardless of the equivalence of technical details. Here's a similar circumstance in America's past: at one point, "colored people" had their own water fountains that were distinct from white people's water fountains. At one point, people of different skin color attended separate, but equal!, schools. On a technical level everything seems equal: the water coming from the separate water fountains is the same, and the curriculum being taught at segregated public schools is also equal. However, we readily recognize in these cases that separate is inherently unequal, and the issue of marriage v. civil unions is no different (even though ostensibly only a matter of terminology - at least on the state level in California, as the distinction holds a large series of unsolved legal/tax ramifications in federal law). If the government, being an institution with a vested interest in equality for all citizens, uses the term marriage to refer to the unions of one group of people, then it must be obligated to do so for all groups of citizens.
As as explained earlier in the thread, this is a horrible analogy.
There does not exist, nor is anyone suggesting the existance of, seperate homo/hetero sexual court houses.
I'm not even sure how you can pretend to compare the two. The reason for the seperate fountains and schools, was so that "white people would not have to touch or be in contact with non white people." It is by its very nature, demeaning, and a clear statement of "We don't want to be near you, or consider you part of our comunity."
However, in the issue of the term "marriage", its purely a statement of "For 2,000 years, the term marriage has been something that only applies to a Husband and Wife, and we want it to stay that way."
To put this another way, In the begining, there was one school, and one water fountain, and everybody learned and drank together, but then in the mid 1900s, some people decided to seperate and be segregated, but now we are back to the way things were bofore.
vs....
In the begining, man lived with women and had babies, and then we made marriages, and now in the early 2000s, some people want to change the meaning of marriage to include two men, or two women.
And even if you don't agree with argument, then you have the whole "physical object" vs "legal term" debate. As someone pointed out earlier, and MD and DO have different titles, but are both still treated equally. A psychologist, and a pyschoanalyst are given different titles, but they are both still bound by confidentiality agreements, and treated as experts on the human pysch.
I'm not sure why you would want to say that a relationship that a majority of the time, ends up with a child being born from that relationship, is the same as a relationship that a majority of the time, children are not born from it. To me, these are two different types of relationships, and should probabbly have two different words to describe them.
Xavius2008-11-16 02:43:54
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 15 2008, 08:35 PM) 582677
As as explained earlier in the thread, this is a horrible analogy.
There does not exist, nor is anyone suggesting the existance of, seperate homo/hetero sexual court houses.
I'm not even sure how you can pretend to compare the two. The reason for the seperate fountains and schools, was so that "white people would not have to touch or be in contact with non white people." It is by its very nature, demeaning, and a clear statement of "We don't want to be near you, or consider you part of our comunity."
However, in the issue of the term "marriage", its purely a statement of "For 2,000 years, the term marriage has been something that only applies to a Husband and Wife, and we want it to stay that way."
There does not exist, nor is anyone suggesting the existance of, seperate homo/hetero sexual court houses.
I'm not even sure how you can pretend to compare the two. The reason for the seperate fountains and schools, was so that "white people would not have to touch or be in contact with non white people." It is by its very nature, demeaning, and a clear statement of "We don't want to be near you, or consider you part of our comunity."
However, in the issue of the term "marriage", its purely a statement of "For 2,000 years, the term marriage has been something that only applies to a Husband and Wife, and we want it to stay that way."
From your own mouth, it's good hetero children of good hetero families don't have to share moral space with gays and have their children taught that gay couples are ok in the classroom. You don't want them to be treated equally.
QUOTE
To put this another way, In the begining, there was one school, and one water fountain, and everybody learned and drank together, but then in the mid 1900s, some people decided to seperate and be segregated, but now we are back to the way things were bofore.
vs....
In the begining, man lived with women and had babies, and then we made marriages, and now in the early 2000s, some people want to change the meaning of marriage to include two men, or two women.
And even if you don't agree with argument, then you have the whole "physical object" vs "legal term" debate. As someone pointed out earlier, and MD and DO have different titles, but are both still treated equally. A psychologist, and a pyschoanalyst are given different titles, but they are both still bound by confidentiality agreements, and treated as experts on the human pysch.
I'm not sure why you would want to say that a relationship that a majority of the time, ends up with a child being born from that relationship, is the same as a relationship that a majority of the time, children are not born from it. To me, these are two different types of relationships, and should probabbly have two different words to describe them.
vs....
In the begining, man lived with women and had babies, and then we made marriages, and now in the early 2000s, some people want to change the meaning of marriage to include two men, or two women.
And even if you don't agree with argument, then you have the whole "physical object" vs "legal term" debate. As someone pointed out earlier, and MD and DO have different titles, but are both still treated equally. A psychologist, and a pyschoanalyst are given different titles, but they are both still bound by confidentiality agreements, and treated as experts on the human pysch.
I'm not sure why you would want to say that a relationship that a majority of the time, ends up with a child being born from that relationship, is the same as a relationship that a majority of the time, children are not born from it. To me, these are two different types of relationships, and should probabbly have two different words to describe them.
Marriage hasn't been defined as "man lived with woman and had babies" for more than a brief sliver of time. You have "man and woman run a household together," and "man take woman as domestic slave" and "man lived with woman, woman served as chief of personnel, man had babies with other women" and "man and woman love each other very much and want to spend the rest of their lives together" and "two people love each other very much and want to spend the rest of their lives together." You are correct in pointing out that "man and woman" has been a constant refrain in that, but marriage itself is a very fickle term.
Ameri2008-11-16 05:36:39
For all the talk about your bible this, your god that regarding civil rights...
Check out this Youtube video of Reverend Amos Brown at the San Francisco Join the Impact Rally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riJUJzpgnfM
He says it best.
p.s. seperate church and state and get your religion out of my marriage.
Check out this Youtube video of Reverend Amos Brown at the San Francisco Join the Impact Rally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riJUJzpgnfM
He says it best.
p.s. seperate church and state and get your religion out of my marriage.
Yrael2008-11-16 05:54:35
I wouldn't regard him, of all people, as a reliable and unbiased source.
p.s. get your state ouf of my church and get your marriage out of my religion.
p.s. get your state ouf of my church and get your marriage out of my religion.
Daganev2008-11-16 07:09:34
QUOTE(Xavius @ Nov 15 2008, 06:43 PM) 582678
From your own mouth, it's good hetero children of good hetero families don't have to share moral space with gays and have their children taught that gay couples are ok in the classroom. You don't want them to be treated equally.
I never said such a thing. I only said that I don't want them learning that a relationship between two men or two women is the same thing as a marriage. When they teach about domestic partnerships, and civil unions, they can share the same moral space.
QUOTE
Marriage hasn't been defined as "man lived with woman and had babies" for more than a brief sliver of time. You have "man and woman run a household together," and "man take woman as domestic slave" and "man lived with woman, woman served as chief of personnel, man had babies with other women" and "man and woman love each other very much and want to spend the rest of their lives together" and "two people love each other very much and want to spend the rest of their lives together." You are correct in pointing out that "man and woman" has been a constant refrain in that, but marriage itself is a very fickle term.
Most of those definitions you gave are not really mutually exclusive, and they also are irrelevant to my point. I was not defining mariage as "man live with woman and had babies" and I don't know why you think I was defining it that way.
What I said was, if you have one relationship, lets call it X. And 80% of those relationships result in Z, and you have another relationship Y, and 80% of those relationships do NOT result in Z, then I don't know why you would want to apply the same label to both X and Y.
Unknown2008-11-16 07:13:51
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 16 2008, 02:09 AM) 582771
What I said was, if you have one relationship, lets call it X. And 80% of those relationships result in Z, and you have another relationship Y, and 80% of those relationships do NOT result in Z, then I don't know why you would want to apply the same label to both X and Y.
This example fails.
What about the male and female couples who can't reproduce due to infertility? Should they lose their marriage rights?
Furien2008-11-16 07:17:08
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 15 2008, 11:09 PM) 582771
What I said was, if you have one relationship, lets call it X. And 80% of those relationships result in Z, and you have another relationship Y, and 80% of those relationships do NOT result in Z, then I don't know why you would want to apply the same label to both X and Y.
I can just as easily ask, why wouldn't you? The result of Z seems really insignificant to me. So, X produces babies, but Y doesn't. Great! X and Y are still a relationship. Either X or Y could easily just be rape that results in Z. X and Y can also just be done out of love, regardless of Z occurring or not. There's just..no reason to not apply the same label.
Xavius2008-11-16 07:19:43
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 16 2008, 01:09 AM) 582771
What I said was, if you have one relationship, lets call it X. And 80% of those relationships result in Z, and you have another relationship Y, and 80% of those relationships do NOT result in Z, then I don't know why you would want to apply the same label to both X and Y.
Let's say you have one oven, let's call it a Thermador. And 80% of those ovens result in fires, and you have another oven (Maytag), and 80% of those ovens do NOT result in fires, then I don't know why you would wa...oh, wait. Probably because they serve the same essential function.
That is, unless you want to come out and say that marriage's essential function is making babies between two sheets, but that's not your point. Noooo...
Saran2008-11-16 07:28:24
hasn't the whole... producing babiezzz argument been shot down earlier because of infertile and elderly couples.
Daganev2008-11-16 17:13:54
QUOTE(Saran @ Nov 15 2008, 11:28 PM) 582777
hasn't the whole... producing babiezzz argument been shot down earlier because of infertile and elderly couples.
No, because as a rule we respect people's privacy and don't go Big Brother on such things. But if someone is found to be infertile, it is legal enough reason to annull a marriage or get a divorce.
Yrael2008-11-16 18:20:24
AWES-how disheartening. So I can drag Furien off, and if she can't have my babies, BANG, marriage is off and she's out on the corner? SCO-That's awful.
Edit: As an interesting aside note, did you know Benny Hinn predicted the destruction of all homosexuals in 1995? Think about it - youj're on borrowed time. Benny Hinn said so. He heals people with the power of jesus.
Edit: As an interesting aside note, did you know Benny Hinn predicted the destruction of all homosexuals in 1995? Think about it - youj're on borrowed time. Benny Hinn said so. He heals people with the power of jesus.
Desitrus2008-11-16 19:21:23
QUOTE(Nokraenom @ Nov 15 2008, 05:40 AM) 582561
This is an argument with which I take issue.
Equals rights means equal recognition under the law. Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, regardless of the equivalence of technical details. Here's a similar circumstance in America's past: at one point, "colored people" had their own water fountains that were distinct from white people's water fountains. At one point, people of different skin color attended separate, but equal!, schools. On a technical level everything seems equal: the water coming from the separate water fountains is the same, and the curriculum being taught at segregated public schools is also equal. However, we readily recognize in these cases that separate is inherently unequal, and the issue of marriage v. civil unions is no different (even though ostensibly only a matter of terminology - at least on the state level in California, as the distinction holds a large series of unsolved legal/tax ramifications in federal law). If the government, being an institution with a vested interest in equality for all citizens, uses the term marriage to refer to the unions of one group of people, then it must be obligated to do so for all groups of citizens.
Equals rights means equal recognition under the law. Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, regardless of the equivalence of technical details. Here's a similar circumstance in America's past: at one point, "colored people" had their own water fountains that were distinct from white people's water fountains. At one point, people of different skin color attended separate, but equal!, schools. On a technical level everything seems equal: the water coming from the separate water fountains is the same, and the curriculum being taught at segregated public schools is also equal. However, we readily recognize in these cases that separate is inherently unequal, and the issue of marriage v. civil unions is no different (even though ostensibly only a matter of terminology - at least on the state level in California, as the distinction holds a large series of unsolved legal/tax ramifications in federal law). If the government, being an institution with a vested interest in equality for all citizens, uses the term marriage to refer to the unions of one group of people, then it must be obligated to do so for all groups of citizens.
Don't be daft. Women didn't ask to be called men when they wanted the right to vote. Magically, it wasn't separate but equal, they just got the vote. Accept that the end result isn't different regarding non-physical things such as laws/rights or change the term (man/woman to person; marriage/civil union to state-sanctioned
-buddies) from marriage, stop demanding something to be something that it isn't or you will never get anywhere.Aerotan2008-11-16 19:50:25
Haven't we already seen that drawing? And the post associated with it?
Desitrus2008-11-16 21:45:58
QUOTE(Aerotan @ Nov 16 2008, 01:50 PM) 582955
Haven't we already seen that drawing? And the post associated with it?
Haven't we already heard the comparison between Physical Segregation and Equal Rights between different parties? Each and every single time I hear that same emotional appeal alarmist crap that drawing will more than likely surface. Comparing anything in this thread to A. Nazi Germany B. Physical Segregation or C. Slavery is grounds for calling of stupidity. As stated in a previous example, if your tax form says "Check 1A for Single. 1B for Marriage or Civil Union." How is that separate but inequal? This is where the drawing comes in. These are not two separate water fountains. This is the exact same thing provided to two parties.
Now then, continue to fight over a word. As usual, I'll be back if what amounts to pure, baseless emotional appeal examples are used with no real root in the truth.
Remember, petition your governor for State-Sanctioned
-Buddies today! A new term, a new world!Xavius2008-11-16 21:52:29
QUOTE(Desitrus @ Nov 16 2008, 03:45 PM) 583015
As stated in a previous example, if your tax form says "Check 1A for Single. 1B for Marriage or Civil Union." How is that separate but inequal? This is where the drawing comes in. These are not two separate water fountains. This is the exact same thing provided to two parties.
As also mentioned about a dozen times on this thread, box 1B only says married and very explicitly does not include civil unions. Also add in that, since they have separate legal standings, private discrimination is still permissible. You might be seeing a lot of half-baked box 1B's out there.
Xavius2008-11-16 21:57:07
Double post, but somehow I skimmed over this.
Not so much. At least not in California or Nebraska.
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 16 2008, 11:13 AM) 582903
No, because as a rule we respect people's privacy and don't go Big Brother on such things. But if someone is found to be infertile, it is legal enough reason to annull a marriage or get a divorce.
Not so much. At least not in California or Nebraska.
QUOTE
Grounds for Filing: The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage must declare the appropriate California grounds upon which the dissolution of marriage is being sought. The appropriate lawful ground will be that which the parties agree upon and can substantiate, or that which the filing spouse desires to prove to the court. The dissolution of marriage grounds are as follows:
Dissolution of the marriage or legal separation of the parties may be based on either of the following grounds, which shall be pleaded generally: (1) Irreconcilable differences.
Irreconcilable differences are those grounds which are determined by the court to be substantial reasons for not continuing the marriage and which make it appear that the marriage should be dissolved.
(2) Incurable insanity.
A marriage may be dissolved on the grounds of incurable insanity only upon proof, including competent medical or psychiatric testimony, that the insane spouse was at the time the petition was filed, and remains, incurably insane.
(California Code - Sections: 2310)
Dissolution of the marriage or legal separation of the parties may be based on either of the following grounds, which shall be pleaded generally: (1) Irreconcilable differences.
Irreconcilable differences are those grounds which are determined by the court to be substantial reasons for not continuing the marriage and which make it appear that the marriage should be dissolved.
(2) Incurable insanity.
A marriage may be dissolved on the grounds of incurable insanity only upon proof, including competent medical or psychiatric testimony, that the insane spouse was at the time the petition was filed, and remains, incurably insane.
(California Code - Sections: 2310)
QUOTE
Grounds for Filing: The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage must declare the appropriate Nebraska grounds upon which the dissolution of marriage is being sought. The appropriate lawful ground will be that which the parties agree upon and can substantiate, or that which the filing spouse desires to prove to the court. The dissolution of marriage grounds are as follows:
The court will grant a dissolution of marriage according to the following grounds:
No Fault:
Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Fault:
1. Mentally ill and lacks the ability to consent to a dissolution of marriage.
2. Drug and alcohol use abuse.
(Nebraska Statutes - Chapter 42 - Sections: 361, 362)
The court will grant a dissolution of marriage according to the following grounds:
No Fault:
Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Fault:
1. Mentally ill and lacks the ability to consent to a dissolution of marriage.
2. Drug and alcohol use abuse.
(Nebraska Statutes - Chapter 42 - Sections: 361, 362)
Desitrus2008-11-16 22:09:40
QUOTE(Xavius @ Nov 16 2008, 03:52 PM) 583016
As also mentioned about a dozen times on this thread, box 1B only says married and very explicitly does not include civil unions. Also add in that, since they have separate legal standings, private discrimination is still permissible. You might be seeing a lot of half-baked box 1B's out there.
Then whatever sources people posted are severely misinformed. Someone has cited (via a reputable site) that all tax benefits/penalties applied to Marriage are exactly the same for Civil Unions, as well as rights afforded to Marriages regarding property/medical/etc. Is that back up for rebuttal?
If you are talking about a Federal level, that has nothing to do with Prop8 in California.
