Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Sign in to follow this  
Juan Cruz

A Conservative Surprise Re: Gay Marriage

Recommended Posts

Catcup: "The gay couple does not have the same OPTION as the straight couple. That is an inequity."

Equal treatment of different groups, whether of two or more persons, is not guaranteed by our laws, nor should it be. Churches, political action committees, for-profit corporations, neighborhood associations, and golf clubs are all treated differently by the laws. Equal protection of the laws applies to individuals, not groups. Every individual has the same option to marry, subject to the same restrictions, as every other individual.

Trefor: "...there is discrimination against those who wish to marry a person of the same sex."

No more than there is discrimination against those who wish to marry a sibling or those who wish to marry a person who is already married. Wishes and choices are not guaranteed the equal protection of the laws, nor should they be.

Trefor: "But the state allows nobody to marry their sibling nor recognises polygamous marriages. Yet the state will only take action on polygamy where more than one civilly recognised mariage at one time has been contracted. The polygamists of Utah who have been religiously but not civilly married are not proceeded against unless there is another legal reason involved..."

Same-sex couples who have been religiously but not civilly married are not proceeded against, either. The reason is the same. No law has been broken. Laws have been broken by civil administrators recently, in California and elsewhere. The couples that were unlawfully "married" will not face any legal action, but the administrators may.

Trefor: "In the case of incest or legal polygamy the discrimination is equal. It is not equal where a couple who are not related or under age may marry when they are of opposite sex and another couple who are not related or under age may not because they are of the same sex."

The discrimination is equal in all of those cases. A non-related couple may marry but a closely related couple may not. A couple of single people may marry but a couple in which one is already married may not. A couple consisting of one of each gender may marry but a couple of the same gender may not. All couples (or other groups) are not treated equally. Couples or other groups are not entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Individuals are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catcup,

I'm sure you recognize that the African woman-woman marriages you cited were not analogous to marriages in our culture, where women have the same property (and other) rights as men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG:

As I said before, this is a human rights issue. You either believe every human being has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, equal to the next person, or you believe they do not.

Do you believe that homosexuals do not deserve to be treated with dignity and respect?

Do you believe they should not have the same right to protect their own financial interests and health issues the same as you do?

Do you believe they do not have the right to live their lives peacefully and privately?

Do they not have the same right to pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" according to the United States Constitution?

In your eyes is liberty and justice only for some?

And my mention of woman to woman marriage was in reference to Trefor's point that in a civil union involving the same sex, the participants do not necessarily need to be homosexual, but two heterosexuals could have a civil union in order to protect their interests.

I simply cited for Trefor an anthropological illustration of another culture which did the same thing for the same reason. I am sorry that was not clear to you.

"Tear out our hearts--- and they will fatally wound you."

Hans Scholl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way...

As for women in the United States having the same rights as men...

On the books, we are supposed to have the same rights. In practice, we do not.

Just like African Americans who were actually given the right to vote on March 30th of 1870 in the fifteenth ammendment, it was not until January 23, 1964 that the twenty-fourth ammendment stepped in and forbade the poll taxes that actually prevented blacks from exercising rights given to them nearly a hundred years previously. Um, I believe that's what all that civil rights business was in the sixties........

Women STILL do not receive the same pay for the same work a man does, nor does she have the same opportunities for advancement. Witness only a simple handful of women CEOs in the Fortune 500 Companies.

We are also STILL underrepresented in political offices and elsewhere.

My point?

This country has a very long way to go in order to correct it's problems with HUMAN RIGHTS.

"Tear out our hearts--- and they will fatally wound you."

Hans Scholl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catcup: You do realize that you can't really measure, say, women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies as against a statistical breakdown of the population, right? The two sample sets don't correlate. Too many factors determine who gets to be a CEO, it obviously can't be compared to a random drawing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough in 1900 only four states had extentended the franchise to both sexes - Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado and Utah.

The other states, like other countries, found all kinds of reasons why they shouldn't be allowed it.

There were no doubt many who thought the status quo was just fine then.

Just as there are some that think it is now.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't go picking at nits with you.

Women and blacks do NOT have the access to equal education, equal employment, equal compensation, and equal housing that the laws on the books say we have a right to, and are underrepresented in the areas I mentioned before. And if only eight women in a field of 500 isn't underrepresentation, then I don't know what is. It is a blatant example that women are simply not given the opportunities for advancement men are given.

We have to fight for what we get, regardless.

And gays have even less access because there are currently fewer laws that protect their rights.

And that is the main point of this thread.

You either come down on the side of human rights equally for all,

Or you can get in line behind all the other neanderthals and tyrants of history who felt it was appropriate to deny other human beings their dignity and human rights, enslave them, and even deny them the right to exist.

I don't care about all the other distracting drivel and smokescreens. You can hide behind whatever argument you want to choose.

It really comes down to that. You are either for equal human rights or you are not.

"Tear out our hearts--- and they will fatally wound you."

Hans Scholl

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth saying again, so I'll say it again:

Loy Craig Martindale declared regarding homosexuals, that "...some of us would gladly execute you!"

What is it we call those who embrace that view?

How many here feel these people have no right to life itself? Or to even conduct their lives in peace and privacy?

Come, show yourselves for what you are. Name yourself. Now.

If we fail to learn the lessons of history, we are in danger of repeating the worst humanity can commit against itself-- and we will deserve what we get.

And now, I'm done.

"Tear out our hearts--- and they will fatally wound you."

Hans Scholl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catcup: Perhaps I misread you, but that sounded kind of hostile, to me. Who's "hiding" behind an argument? As for women and blacks not having equal access to education, that's true--they had MORE access to it when I was trying to get financial aid for college. The FA office might as well have hung up a sign that said "white boys need not apply".

(It's not like I repressed any blacks when I was in grade school, although there was that one time when I didn't pick Vicky to be on my kickball team. I think we can all agree that cooties are a justifiable disqualifying trait, though, can't we? icon_biggrin.gif:D--> )

It's also bordering on a false dilemma to lump all of human rights as depending upon one that has some debatable elements to it. I don't think there's any harm in discussing various sides of the issue, is there?

Or did I really misread what you were saying?

Puzzled,

Zix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catcup, you sure jumped to some wild, completely unfounded speculation. I'm one of the strongest proponents you could imagine of equal rights and equal protection of the laws for all persons, and that means ALL. I support redressing the legitimate grievances that homosexuals and some others share. Civil marriage could do the trick, but that's not the purpose of civil marriage, as it has been defined by law and practice in our society. Civil unions could also do the trick, as could other possibilities.

Concerning this:

quote:
And my mention of woman to woman marriage was in reference to Trefor's point that in a civil union involving the same sex, the participants do not necessarily need to be homosexual, but two heterosexuals could have a civil union in order to protect their interests.

I simply cited for Trefor an anthropological illustration of another culture which did the same thing for the same reason. I am sorry that was not clear to you.


You changed to "civil union involving the same sex." Both Trefor's point and your response specifically said "marriage." There is a difference. That's all I was noting.

You seemingly fail to see a difference between people who favor providing equal protection of the laws without redefining marriage and "all the other neanderthals and tyrants of history who felt it was appropriate to deny other human beings their dignity and human rights, enslave them, and even deny them the right to exist." You even go on about Martindale, whose hateful spiel I guess you assume permeates the thinking of people like Zixar or me. Well, I don't know about Zixar, but I never heard any of Martindale's rants and wouldn't have tolerated them if I had. I had already withdrawn from TWI before Wierwille died, though I still had some contact. I went to the ROA right after he died, mostly because my wife wanted to pay her respects. That was the first time and last time I ever heard Martindale speak publicly. About all I remember about that was that I thought he was a bozo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catcup - the statistics you are referring to WRT women in the workforce and equal pay are somewhat misleading.

When you look at college educated men and women, and compare the amount of time spent in a position - actual on the job time, not number of years since hire - and compare their pay, women are getting roughly 92% of what men get. What skews the statistics is when leaves of absence are not taken into account.

Suppose a woman and a man both start in very similar positions in 1990 at exactly the same pay. This woman takes off 6 months in 1992 and six months in 1994 to have a total of 2 children.

Should she get exactly the same pay raises those 2 years as her male counterpart?

So in 2004, they both have been working at their respective companies for 14 years. But the woman only has 13 years of actual experience.

Why should the woman make the same amount as the man?

If you remove from your statistical analysis all the women in that category, and only compare women with continuous service to men with continuous service, then the "disparity" reduces to 2% or so.

Include all those women in the analysis, and compare only length of service and don't account for extended time off, and voila! You have the "women only make 69% of what their male counterparts make" statistic verified. But it isn't honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ooohhhh!!!! run steve! run !!!!

It's hard to make that change, When life and love turns strange. And old.

To give a love, you gotta live a love. To live a love, you gotta be "part of". When will I see you again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me that Catcup was NOT being hostile to any individual, nor was she calling names or doing anything but putting forth ideas that should be considered as our culture and society faces the need to change and to accommodate the human rights of individuals who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

Perhaps with Long Gone, it is a simple matter of semantics, regarding definitions for marriage vs civil union. I've seen LG speak for the rights of individuals, but the adamant stand that "marriage" not be redefined seems to be something that decision makers who were intent (on both sides, govt and gays; not gays vs hatemongers) on resolving issues would eventually compromise on given that there is basic agreement on the UNDERLYING issue of human rights.

Certain other arguments taking on Catcup appear to be, as alluded to by Catcup, nitpiking and therefore, IMO evasive and not engaging the real issues.

And I am not referring to Steve expounding on gender pay comparisons, which, to me do not seem relevant to this issue.

icon_biggrin.gif:D--> You talkin to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(pass over this post if you're into logic)

i beg your forgiveness here.... i'm still not understanding soooooo much of this issue

today i asked my kid (honest, i was just curious because he doesn't have years of my brain ~ yet icon_wink.gif;)-->) what he thinks of homosexuals having the right to get married

he was surprised and said (i'll give you the gist) what ? i thought they were allowed to get married. i said no it's against the law

he said well tommy and neil (friends) are married. i told him no, they have just lived together for 20 years

and he said oh, i thought they were married, no fair....

(side note he likes girls)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocky: I would welcome any cogent arguments on the topic. However, attacking the poster when you cannot otherwise back up your position with reasoned argument is not debate, it's nothing but immature fallacy.

Keep your ad hominem spew to yourself from now on. It has no place in civilized debate, not to mention being long past old, repetitive, and tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zixar,

I was not talking to you.

Stop stalking me. icon_mad.gif

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very dumb question to ask of ALL here, but it needs to be asked.

Every last SOMEBODY should have "rights" -- (this is the gist of the arguements here, as I see it), and having looked at the postings, I am wondering ---

HAS ANYONE LOOKED AT THE WORD, RECENTLY? -- or are we all following what is "popular conviction" -- (yet ANOTHER "PC") ?? icon_confused.gif:confused:-->

Times have changed. We as people follow the times, so we have changed. But has God changed in His thinking, about what is right, and what is wrong?? Homosexuality is a sin, the same as being drunk, lying, murdering, etc., etc., etc., are all sins.

And before you all castigate me about my comparisions of all these here, I am NOT saying one is worse than the other, but I am saying all are equally bad.

Soooooooo -- back to my question. I don't care what you think, or where you stand, but I do care about whether or not YOUR ideas match up with the Word. You will all have to figure that one out for yourselves, because for sure, I cannot do so for you.

All in all, if what is thought (and believed) doesn't match up to what is promoted by the Word, then you, I, everyone else who thinks contrary to scripture, is wrong.

If any wish to refute this, fine. Tell God you are angry, and that He did not do a good job setting "boundaries". But don't come to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocky, it's not just semantics, although that is very important when it comes to the law. For all their similarities, there is at least one fundamental difference between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions. They simply are not the same things. A typical heterosexual union will produce children; a homosexual union cannot. The prospect of a union producing children is the basis for our marriage laws. It is an essential element of civil marriage, as defined by those laws. Redefining civil marriage to include same-sex couples would remove that essential element, which would remove the basis for consanguinity restrictions, among other things. Defining a different sort of civil union, without regard to gender, would not affect the basis for current marriage laws. Such a union (or unions, if more than one type were defined) could include some or almost all benefits, privileges, and responsibilities currently included in civil marriage, and possibly some that would not reasonably be included in civil marriage. (I can't think of any, but I'll allow for the possibility.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dmiller,

Many of us don't share your religious beliefs concerning the authority of the Bible or your understanding of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, LG, you seem to be taking issue more with which word to use than the underlying issues. And that IS semantics.

bottom line is that I could care less what you believe. I'm not even taking exception to your views. I simply disagree.

And yet, as I read your position on this issue, you seem to be willing to address the human/civil rights issues, but you seem very certain about what you want the solution called, and what you do not want it called. That IS semantics, from where I sit.

icon_biggrin.gif:D--> You talkin to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

se-man-tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-mntks)

n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1 Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.

2 Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.

3 The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

Source: The American HeritageĀ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright Ā© 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

icon_biggrin.gif:D--> You talkin to me?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long Gone -- not only was your reply succint, and to the point --I understood it. icon_frown.gif:(--> icon_frown.gif:(-->

Please accept my apologies for presuming that others thought as I did.

On the road together icon_smile.gif:)--> -- BEMA BOUND! icon_cool.gificon_cool.gif

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocky, I know the definition of semantics. I didn't say that semantics was not an issue. I said, "It's not just semantics." There is a fundamental difference in the two types of unions, no matter what you may wish to call them. That difference will continue to exist, even if the laws are changed so as to no longer recognize the difference. That is not "a simple matter of semantics" any more than the difference between a glass of water and a glass of beer is "a simple matter of semantics."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dmiller:

When you talk of rights and your understanding of them you must remember that everybody has the right to be wrong.

What you believe to be wrong and what you believe that God thinks is wrong should not be allowed to effect the beliefs and choices of those who do not believe or agree with you.

It's part of free will. It's also part for freedom.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notinkansas"

Quote:

Now hear this.

ARE YOU LISTENING?

Don't you ever, EVER attempt to equate education or academics with PEDOPHILIA.

I did no such thing.

What are you saying? Is education SO DANGEROUS that it will ultimately lead to the acceptance of PEDOPHILIA?

No. What I am saying is that pedophiles are working in the fields of education and academia and are working the "rights" game just like everyone else has.

How utterly (fill in this blank with any curse word you like).

And yes, I AM YELLING.

And yes, I DID TAKE TIME TO COOL OFF BEFORE WRITING THIS.

Get a grip on the hatred, Def. I'm from Texas for 5 generations; I was brought up just as conservative as you were.

I have no hatred. This is a WARNING! Yes I was YELLING back at you. We have people all over the political and academic spectrum that are working to subvert our freedoms and liberty. One of the greatest tools is in the so-called sexual liberation movement.

There people who want our kids (for sex) and want it to be legal.

The North American Man Boy Love Association is the lead lobbying effort, and so far, the gay rights community has yet to repudiate them.

How can they? If they say that part of homosexuality (two males engaged in sex) is wrong, that could stunt their own efforts.

I am the NRA.

Good for you, I despise guns.

I had to put ducttape on my cowboy boots at age 16, because I had worn them out.

By the age of 16 I was wearing size 16 shoes, so no boots for me.

Like Catcup, I had some LEARNING to do, about COMPASSION.

So what have you done with it.? You didn't show me any.

Learning, I once heard, is an exciting adventure.

Maybe you could look at both sides of an issue in the future

DON'T you try to lump me (or any other ACADEMIC) with pedophiles.

Again, I wasn't.

COLLEGE = GOOD.

I agree, I went to college.

Do you have ANY IDEA how many God-fearing, hard-working, pillar-of-the-community, medicine-discovering, WONDERFUL PEOPLE you just equated with PERVERSION?

No, how many? 5 10 2,000? I equated no one. I said there are some. I could find your faults and equate everyone in your profession, but that would be wrong.

I don't want to go to church with you.

That's a shame, you might like it.

(This message was edited to MAKE IT NICER.)

(BUT NOT BY MUCH.)

I agree, it was not nice at all.

"Live just, and fear not."

Justice demands accountability and punishment. Fear is irrelevant, except our reverence of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...