[Flipside]

into the Middle Ages?

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=World&cat=Gays_and_Lesbians

Seems to me that certain frightened little children cannot abide the thought of not getting their own way

[Taristin]

Hmm. I have read this article, but I can't seem to figure how to put the words I wish to say in text.

I agree that the Mayor did overstep his bounds, and I understand that this ruling wasn't whether same sex marriage should be allowed to exist, but rather to see if the mayor was right or wrong, but nullifying the marriages that already took place was childish, in my opinion.

I only hope this will make the SSM groups fight harder for equal treatment in this issue.

[Solatar]

Nullifying marriages that already exist is grandfathering or whatever isn't it? (can't remember the word, can't remember half of what it is either..)

[ionia23]

They already have equal treatment.  marriage is still defined as a male-female union.  There's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman to get the various financial benefits of a legal marriage.

[Ford Prefect]

If a gay person has to marry someone he/she doesn't want to marry simply to have the same financial benefits as heterosexuals, that's not equal treatment.

[Flipside]

Except the fact he doesn't love her, which is what marriage is about as well, not that many people seem to remember that.

The thing is, I still see it as no better than 'Blacks only' drinking fountains etc.

I wonder how many of these 'Ban Gay Marriage' people are less concerned about the fact they are married and the same sex, and more concerned with the fact that 'married' means that 'God says it's ok for them to have sex'?

It's so much easier to call them sinners when they are forced to live in Sin.

[ionia23]

Too easy to exploit.  If gay marriages were permitted, then I could easily marry my male roomate and get the tax credit.  Whether or not I was ******* his **** wouldn't be anyone's business, so the 'love' thing goes right out the window.  Love's got nothing to do with it, legally.

[beatspete]

On a lighter note....

Originally posted by ionia23
Whether or not I was ******* his **** wouldn't be anyone's business

Great use of asterisks.

[Taristin]

Originally posted by ionia23
Too easy to exploit.  If gay marriages were permitted, then I could easily marry my male roomate and get the tax credit.  Whether or not I was ******* his **** wouldn't be anyone's business, so the 'love' thing goes right out the window.  Love's got nothing to do with it, legally.

That's no different than marrying your female roommate to get a tax credit. So what is your point?

[ionia23]

Legal marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman.  Period.  Legally, the mayor of SF totally blew it.

I really don't think people get it, so lemme 'splain.  Why should a marriage be legal in one state and not legal in another?  Excrement.  If I get hitched to my fellow boyfriend-thing-whatever in Honolulu, it should still be a legally recognized relationship when I move to "Fags-Must-Die", Texas, should I choose to do so.

I don't give a crap about the morals behind it.  Whom you decide to build a life with does not impact me in the slightest, nor anyone else.  The law is stupid, but it's still the law.  THAT'S what needs to be fixed.  Let people's attitudes attend to themselves afterwards.

Translation: Congress, get off your ass and do something about this.  It needs to be discussed!

Btw, the roomie and I have written a number of letters to our representatives on the subject.  He got an answer back to the effect that the issue 'does need to be addressed at a federal level."

That's a start.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by ionia23
Too easy to exploit.  If gay marriages were permitted, then I could easily marry my male roomate and get the tax credit.  Whether or not I was ******* his **** wouldn't be anyone's business, so the 'love' thing goes right out the window.  Love's got nothing to do with it, legally.

Is that the best you can come up with? Its creative, you get points for that, but minus ten million for plausability. You could just as easily marry your female friends and get the same benefits.

The question that those opposed to gay marriage have to answer is "why not?". If there is no good reason, not counting religious superstitions, why gay marriage should not be allowed, lets hear it.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

[Taristin]

Originally posted by ionia23
If I get hitched to my fellow boyfriend-thing-whatever in Honolulu, it should still be a legally recognized relationship when I move to "Fags-Must-Die", Texas, should I choose to do so.

Agreed. But not likely to happen. Each state is more interested in competition with eachother than in unifying this nation. Whenever one state votes for something (Massechussettes for gay marriage, or Maryland for handgun bans) another state retaliates (Mississippi for the SSM ban, or Georgia making a law requiring a handgun in every home).
This country is running in circles.

I don't give a crap about the morals behind it.  Whom you decide to build a life with does not impact me in the slightest, nor anyone else.  The law is stupid, but it's still the law.  THAT'S what needs to be fixed.  Let people's attitudes attend to themselves afterwards.

Yes, but the current administration is totally against the SSM's and the only possible alternative to Bush is another no spined politician who's afraid to rock the boat, so to speak. The law won't be changed until more people fight it. This isn't much different from the civil rights movement in that respect.

Translation: Congress, get off your ass and do something about this.  It needs to be discussed!
 

Better yet, get a bunch of people in congress who will actually do their job. What we need is a Congress that is less about 'which party do I oppose today', or 'Which corporation is paying for my new  home in the mountains of Washington', and more for making this country actually live up to it's title as the greatest nation on Earth.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
Is that the best you can come up with? Its creative, you get points for that, but minus ten million for plausability. You could just as easily marry your female friends and get the same benefits.

The question that those opposed to gay marriage have to answer is "why not?". If there is no good reason, not counting religious superstitions, why gay marriage should not be allowed, lets hear it.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

All right.  For most of the answer, read up a post.  I'll step out on a limb here for debate's sake.

Oh, none of these points will have anything whatsoever to do with so-called "Christian Morality".  I am on the Christian side of things and the very suggestion that God looks down on homosexuals with disgust and damnation makes me want to scream.  It's backwards, stupid, and totally against what being Christian is supposed to mean.


Yeah yeah, bring up Leviticus 18:22, you go right ahead with that.  


1. Legalising same-sex marriages would make explotation of said-institution much easier, for tax purposes.  Dubya gave a rather large tax credit this year to married couples (at the expense of single people, like me)

2. Same-sex couples suffer from the same problems that heterosexual couples do, but with the added stigma of a society that has a long way to go twords acceptance.  Is it fair to subject the children of said-relationships to the consequences of the decisions made by the parents?

3. Banning same-sex marriages is not the same as banning blacks from marrying (or voting, segregation, blah blah).  One is not 'born' gay.  (This one is so highly debateable, it isn't even funny).

Of course, all of this is totally irrelevant and flat-out stupid.  I agree with none of it.  Well, except maybe #3, but that's another debate on it's own.

The law is in place now.  Period.  That's it.  Go change the law.  The rest will take care of itself.  Put it on a ballot, I'll glady vote to strike it down and extend the privilidges, responsibilites, consequences and benefits to same-sex couples.  Never should have been restricted in the first place.

[Rictor]

Alright, thats fair. But somehow I doubt Dubya would put it to a referendum, cause we can all guess how that would turn out. America, and, I should add also most Western democracies, are rather averse to the concept of a referendum, since it gives the people greater control over their own fate, and thats a no-no, the stupid masses ought to be held in check, or they're liable to make some wrong, improper decisions.

And just so its known, I do not support gay adoption without further study into the issue. Thats no longer between two consenting adults, thew child is involved.

[Flipside]

Well, I tend towards the thought that people aren't born straight either, but there you go

The question is not whether it was legally do-able to annul those marriages, the question is in the prejudice that led to the courtroom in the first place. Heterosexual couples exist that already exploit the system, being married in name only, getting a Visa etc. This is far from uncommon practice.

The Question is 'why'? If the case goes on to higher courts, then any benefits would probably be suspended until an outcome is resolved, so Gays wouldn't benefit unless they won. The only reason I can see for this is a little one-fingered salute from the Homophobics. Why take it away from them unless you think they have something they are not 'entitled' to? What makes these people so much 'better' than gays that they had to push it to court in the first place? Fear, mistrust of what seems alien to them. I've said it before, but if we can't deal with the seemingly alien in our own society, how the hell can we presume to be ready to deal with the 'alien' elsewhere?

I wonder, I really wonder, how many of these people know what gays are like, not heard, not read, not imagined, but really know, society is too lazy, selfish and scared to accept matters, it is situations like this where the government DOES need to be ramming legaslations down the populous' throat, if they truly believe in what they preach (daft idea, I know).

I know it is the legal requirement, but, as always, we assume that our interpretation of 'Good and Bad' is somehow transformed into 'Right and Wrong', when the two are often completely different things

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, thats fair. But somehow I doubt Dubya would put it to a referendum, cause we can all guess how that would turn out. America, and, I should add also most Western democracies, are rather averse to the concept of a referendum, since it gives the people greater control over their own fate, and thats a no-no, the stupid masses ought to be held in check, or they're liable to make some wrong, improper decisions.

And just so its known, I do not support gay adoption without further study into the issue. Thats no longer between two consenting adults, thew child is involved.

There are times when majority control is very dangerous, though.  If there was a referendum to throw all asylum seekers into the sea when they arrive in the UK, it'd probably pass.

It's very easy to raise a mob, after all.....

The problem is not so much the system, but the people in it.  It's hard to determine which will be easier to change.

[Moonsword]

That's very, very cynical and unfortunately, very, very accurate.  There's one minor point I disagree with: over time, the system has become perverted so that it encourages the corrupt in it, and the people have become more corrupt to better work the system.

[Flipside]

All countries are Democracies. The guy with the most people wins. The only difference is that in some countries the people vote with guns, and Elections are pretty lively.

People will never accept gays of their own accord. It's the primate in us, we need someone to look down on, and gays are so handy for that. However, what is needed is for society to be beaten over the head with it for about 3 years, any movement against gay marriages gets stamped on. Hard.

I will tell you this, give it 10 years and a large percentage of the populatation will think it was their idea in the first place.

[Rictor]

so because perfect democracy is impossible, we ought to let it slide?

What ought to be done is to educate people and increase, and I mean this in the broadest sense, their consciousness (politcal, cultural, that sort of thing). But what is being done is the exact opposite, because it only entrenches the elites who rule. They're not interested in giving up their power, and as a result, or rather as a cause, they're not intersted in educating the public. Look at the time and effort that most people dedicate to the stupidest things. People know more about Survivor than they do about history or politics. Seriiously, I can hardly watch TV for half an hour anymore without getting pissed at the state of affair of the human race.

aldo, what you said is true only so long as people are ignorant. Fortunately, it seems that people in general are becoming more and miore so, despite the best efforts of the ruling elite.

[Flipside]

It seems the printed word has stopped being a media to transfer information from one generation to the next, and become a means of transferring opinion from one person to another. People are naturally lazy of forming an opinion, and we trust the written word.

By beating people on the head with it, I am not talking Martial Law or anything, I mean putting people in situations where they HAVE to come to terms with the fact that it is here to stay. Make people who attack gays attend Homophobia centres etc, treat meetings of Anti-gays as you would treat meetings of the Klan etc