|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: GLBT is a facade
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Admitting that you are same-sex attraction tempted does not constitute a state of sin, anymore than admitting that you are tempted to get more than one wife, or sleep around.....The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel. When homosexuality was not only condoned by openly admitted/accepted (e.g. ancient Greece and Rome), men still were required to marry and beget children.
So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?
Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Shall I mention the fact that the LDS Church poured substantial contributions to the Prop 8 campaign in California?
No one cares if the LDS Church makes doctrinal decisions for its members. People do care when they get involved in the political process and attempt to enforce their morality on people who are not Mormon.
I believe that the LDS Church is unwise to get involved in such moral issues in the public forum. Anytime Prop 8 came up, I voiced my comparison of it to the earlier Prohibition Era support of the LDS Church: it went down very badly. Prop 8 is no different, imho.
quote:
Do you put up with your children's marriages? Of course the couple is primarily responsible for their relationship. The community's role is to:
1) Acknowledge and celebrate their relationship when they are present. "So and so is the spouse of so and so."
2) Do not undermine the relationship when it is going through tough times, ie: Do not start dating one spouse during the marriage.
3) Pray and support them in their continual happiness.
That's a far cry from "support until death"! I was reacting to your use of extreme language.
Of course any decent person is going to want those things for everyone. Not just your own children. But in my experience, heterosexuals do not require or even desire "acknowledge and celebrate their relationship when present". Really, the need for constant validation is a sign of emotional insecurity.
Hypothetically, if one of my children was "married" to a same-sex partner, and I needed to introduce them, I would say, "This is my son/daughter, ****, and this is his/her dearest friend, ****". If they wanted to further clarify, that's up to them. If there was an adopted or fostered child, I would introduce him as such: if the child came from a previous relationship, I would say, "and this is ****'s son/daughter". There is no demand that the relationship be described as spousal or marriage at all, for it to be accepted. Words convey information. The feelings underlying them are altogether a different thing.
quote:
It has nothing to do with wanting a "word." You still have not addressed the central question. Why should marriage be limited to heterosexuals? You bring up civil unions, but my question is why should gay couples settle for a different institution other than marriage?
Legally the "civil union" is not different in any way from heterosexual "marriages". That's why a word for both will be ultimately settled upon. I suspect that heterosexual objectors to "gay marriage" will see the writing on the wall and opt for "civil union" or something similarly ubiquitous, rather than share "marriage" in the legalese with homosexuals or any other LBTs (or polygamists for that matter). "Marriage" will survive as heterosexual (historical) only within the religious rituals of denominations which forbid the practise of homosexuality.
quote:
There are plenty of heterosexuals who are perfectly fine with allowing legal same-sex marriage. Are you implying that they are lesser heterosexuals because they refuse to pick up the banner and fight against LGBT people?
As stated above, the latest polls (from some source or other) indicate that this year, for the first time, a majority of heterosexual men do not object to homosexual "marriages" being legalized. It is only barely under 50% now who object. Out of the acquiescing narrow majority, what portion, do you feel, is "perfectly fine" with it? As with all other civil rights battles, the greatest majority who finally acquiesce simply throw their hands in the air and give up: they see that further resistance is futile. So they settle for silent rebellion. You can see this in the Deep South to this day regarding the popular sentiment of Whites toward Blacks. The laws protecting Blacks (and all other minorities by association) are in place the USA-over; yet resentment and sullen civil rebellion persists.
quote:
There is no significant difference between gay and straight couples.
Don't be absurdly simplistic and dismissive. To hardwired heterosexuals there is an enormous difference in them. Gender is an enormous difference.
quote:
To deny marriage to gay couples makes about as much sense as denying marriage to blonds. We no longer make procreation the litmus test for marriage. As well, there are plenty of same-sex couples who adopt and raise children. In everything that matters, they are a family and thus entitled to the same rights of other families.
Right there, your use of a facile comparison points out the fallacious assertion that there is "no difference". Anyone can change their hair color in a few minutes. No one can literally change their gender, only by drastic measures alter their appearance. Even given future technology which allows free selection of gender (and even swapping between the two, or being both at once), you will have a large segment of homo sapiens who innately feel that gender at birth is natural and everything else is unnatural (and to the religious, a sinful corruption of God's plan). To trivialize these strong feelings is, as I said, being in denial. You are just continuing the divide by denying that there even is one....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel.
This is utter, complete nonsense.
A family friend of ours recently came out as gay in his 50s - having been married and his children have grown up. Until now he has felt unable to be himself.
My husband and I both feel for him, and his family.
He's by no means the only one. I blame society's attitude which can still be horrendously homophobic.
A common insult among children round here is 'you are gay' ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?
Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.
Being gay isn't; but giving into it through sexual activity is the same as any other fornication.
Before the modern civil rights push, being homosexual was a secret to be kept. Your professional and societal life (and sometimes literally your very life) depended on it. So, too, did divorce. Of course, you can't hide that well at all; people lost their promotions, jobs, even religious standing by divorcing (up until the mid 20th century this was true). Being homosexual was even worse for the individual if it came to public awareness. But in cases where a man was married and had a family, and on the side a man lover, this was not proscribed in ancient Rome or Greece. The "sin" would only have been his refusal/inability to produce children within a marriage. In any epoch, the great ones of the land could get away with homosexual relationships on the side; unless they threatened the status quo of the other "greats" (I supplied the example of Edward II and his dearest friend Piers Gaveston).
The LDS Church's leaders have just this month reaffirmed the doctrine that the atonement of Jesus Christ can "heal" the homosexual, i.e. make heterosexual marriage not only possible but fully joyful. Historically, LDS efforts to "cure" homosexuality have largely resulted in failure, and even "disastrous marriages", as you say. Such "cures" have been seen to not change the homosexual at all, but only put him (and on rare occasions, her) into denial. Now the LDS Church policy is to pray for healing, and remain celibate until such time as a healing actually occurs to the individual's satisfaction. Lifetime celibacy from homosexual "temptation" is the policy. The Church will never acquiesce to homosexual marriage or cohabitation in any form....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel.
This is utter, complete nonsense.
A family friend of ours recently came out as gay in his 50s - having been married and his children have grown up. Until now he has felt unable to be himself.
My husband and I both feel for him, and his family.
He's by no means the only one. I blame society's attitude which can still be horrendously homophobic.
A common insult among children round here is 'you are gay'
The utter complete nonsense is your leaping to the conclusion that I was saying only medieval Europe or ancient Israel; I said "e.g.", which means for instance - referring deliberately to times and places when openly being homosexual could get you killed by the then-law of the land, not just by a mob of law breakers.
This thread would not reach the end of page one, if our society was accepting of homosexual relationships. There would no issue to discuss.
Of course there is a lot of prejudice and it won't go away in a generation or even a few generations, after "gay marriages" are finally legalized throughout the USA - if the repercussions of US slavery are an indicator. People will still feel what they will. The laws when applied effectively will punish discrimination. The feelings cannot be punished....
[ 16. October 2010, 18:36: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?
Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.
Being gay isn't; but giving into it through sexual activity is the same as any other fornication.
So a gay man being true to himself is 'fornication' whereas a gay man entering a love-less, sexless marriage is good? For whom?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This thread would not reach the end of page one, if our society was accepting of homosexual relationships. There would no issue to discuss.
I earnestly pray for that day to arrive ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I'll fix this for you:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This thread would not reach the end of page one
. . . if you had honestly and openly posted what you want to discuss in the first place, because there are already multiple threads on the topic, to which you have added nothing new.
Come down off the cross, Merlin. We need the wood.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fulrad
Shipmate
# 15750
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?
Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.
Being gay isn't; but giving into it through sexual activity is the same as any other fornication.
So a gay man being true to himself is 'fornication' whereas a gay man entering a love-less, sexless marriage is good? For whom?
Good point, Leo.
I must say, Merlinthemad, I don't like the words 'giving in to it' It suggests its something wrong to be resisted.
-----------------------------------------
LGBT Eucharist ![[Smile]](smile.gif) On our church blog, click here.
Posts: 208 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I'll fix this for you:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This thread would not reach the end of page one
. . . if you had honestly and openly posted what you want to discuss in the first place, because there are already multiple threads on the topic, to which you have added nothing new.
Come down off the cross, Merlin. We need the wood.
hosting
This is getting too close to C3 name calling and personal insults. Please remember that there is an open Hell thread where you can take that sort of thing. It doesn't belong here.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
May I point out that, as usual, Merlin is so focused on the US -- and indeed Utah -- that he is totally unaware of what's happening anywhere else in the world. Which, IMO, totally disqualifies his opinion from being worth discussing.
I'll just note that that in countries where same-sex marriage (not the weasel-word "civil union") is recognized, none of the ill effects he's afraid of have occurred. Het couples (and singles) don't seem bothered in the least that "marriage" is used of same-sex marriages.
A nasty person -- not I of course -- might conclude that Merlin's fears are based on his exceedingly low opinion of his fellow citizens who, he seems to believe, are unique in the world in their inability to think, to adapt, and to accept that anything that happens anywhere else is worth considering even for a moment. They are what they are, he seems to say, and God forbid that they should ever think or become something else -- even something better.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
@John: way to dismiss "the messenger" by attacking my perspective. I am from Utah, "Hickvill USA"; land of the Mormon fundies. So in your opinion, I am "...totally unaware of what's happening anywhere else in the world." The rest of what follows is equally derogatory. If I was "totally unaware" your opinion would be valid. But it should be obvious by this point that I am far from "totally unaware" of the challenges facing all of us, everywhere, regarding the legalities of the GLBT advocacy agenda.
When I said "GLBT is a facade", I was specifically targeting the segment of the GLBT community who are pushing for "special rights". I am fully aware that my view of the outside world is dependent upon the Media: that includes the Internet especially, since it is the main source I use to access outside opinion and to get information.
I have developed doubts about the level or degree of the GLBT advocacy pushing for "special rights". (It's that suspicion of "the Media" sensationalizing and distorting everything for a story, that I mentioned before.) I know that hetero extremists make a great deal of noise about the dangers of having our laws corrupted to cater to the GLBT advocacy.
So I started this thread to challenge this: opening it with the observation of my personal belief that the bottom line in any discussion, or agenda by either side, must be an acceptance that BEHAVIOR must be the same from either group if "sexual morality" is going to mean anything at all.
I opined how these sensationalized demonstrations are not helpful in characterizing the GLBT community as a whole. Others posting seemed to agree that the repugnant character of the "gay pride" parades and protest marches are distasteful, i.e. not helpful to the cause of homosexuals seeking equality.
I have agreed that it seems to me that the vast majority of homosexuals are the same as heterosexual majorities everywhere: they want to quietly live a fulfilling life with their loved one in total commitment, including monogamous sexual relations. I don't KNOW this: I deduce it from my observations about human nature around me. And not surprisingly, the great majority of responses by in individuals on this thread support the assertion that most homosexuals are normal people in every other way but their same-sex attraction.
I have said that I believe most homosexuals would not go anywhere near a "gay pride" parade or protest march; deeming the behavior of many who do to be inimical to the cause of the majority of the GLBT advocacy. And again, responses on this thread indicate that this belief is not unwarranted.
However, the publicizing of the homosexual majority as "GLBT" (or more commonly, I am finding out, "LGBT" - possibly to get away from punning it with something like "groovy lettuce, bacon and tomato"), is not helpful in this regard: because the weirdos at the "gay pride" parades and protest marches are anything but normal looking or behaving. Their presentation is Babylonian to religious heterosexuals, in the extreme; what they insinuate by their public displays is abhorrent and widens the divide. Such displays are rebellious and bellicose, designed to offend and challenge, rather than protest in any constructive way. To this kind of advocacy the hetero response is obvious and unmistakable: to label ALL homosexuals the same as the extremist demonstrators and advocates and lobbyists. Thus the resistance to change is heightened against homosexuals, not lessened, by these public displays of protest and "pride".
So the GLBT advocacy has alarmed many people. Here's an example of the concerns that they have. I am sure the list of protested GLBT agenda items is not purely imaginary. You now have this opportunity to show that the GLBT advocacy is not in fact pushing for these kinds of "special rights" under the facade of "equal rights"....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So a gay man being true to himself is 'fornication' whereas a gay man entering a love-less, sexless marriage is good? For whom?
Not at all. As I pointed out, the learned LDS response is to not push for "healing" via therapy, followed by a heterosexual marriage. These have too often (the majority of the time in fact, if my information is correct) failed "disastrously". So the Church's policy is to accept same-sex attraction as yet another temptation to sin; but NOT the sin itself: otherwise, we must define sin to include every single temptation equally. Some temptations are to do more serious sins of course. This is not a moral equivalency. And the LDS doctrine on fornication has always been that it, categorically is second in seriousness only to murder. So you can see the problem of condoning "gay marriage": and why the Church's hubris caused it to back Prop 8 in California.
The correct response to same-sex attraction is to pray for a miraculous healing through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ, i.e. turn to heterosexual attraction and behavior. Meanwhile, it is admitted that often (probably in a majority of cases) healing is not going to occur in this life; and the tempted homosexual must remain celibate if they wish to not sin....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So the GLBT advocacy has alarmed many people. Here's an example of the concerns that they have. I am sure the list of protested GLBT agenda items is not purely imaginary. You now have this opportunity to show that the GLBT advocacy is not in fact pushing for these kinds of "special rights" under the facade of "equal rights"....
I asked earlier what 'special rights' you were talking about. Is this an exhaustive list of the special rights that you have in mind? I presume that you cannot support such a petition because you agree with civil unions (or indicated as much earlier)?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I asked earlier what 'special rights' you were talking about. Is this an exhaustive list of the special rights that you have in mind? I presume that you cannot support such a petition because you agree with civil unions (or indicated as much earlier)?
Sorry I did not get to a link for this earlier. I was somewhat harassed by time constraints.
I am sure that is anything but "an exhaustive list" of "special rights". And yes, I could not sign it, because I believe that "gay marriage" is inevitable.
Up till late in the 20th century, the Law was interpreted solely based on an invisible (voiceless) homosexual minority having no say in that interpretation. "Marriage" was specified by a SCOTUS decision to be "one man and one woman". That was a direct refutation and denial of Mormon polygamy. The mainstream church complied. NOW, the definition by the SCOTUS is being challenged. Yet the majority feeling is still for "one man and one woman". That less than 50% (according to at least one poll) object to "gay marriage" is indicative of the change coming. "Gay marriage" will be a fact everywhere in the USA in the not-too-distant future. (and the contract between TWO consenting adults will probably be called "marriage", for there is no reasonable argument against allowing the Law to refer to all such contracts by the same term by which we refer to salt and pepper shakers on a table....)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Sorry I did not get to a link for this earlier. I was somewhat harassed by time constraints.
I am sure that is anything but "an exhaustive list" of "special rights". And yes, I could not sign it, because I believe that "gay marriage" is inevitable.
Don't worry about it.
For what it's worth, I don't believe in gay marriage either, but I'm not afraid / concerned by an agenda which seeks 'special rights'. If the list in that document isn't exhaustive, can you give this board an indication as to what sort of rights you are talking about? It seems the threat of these 'special rights' exercises you - and is the basis of this thread, at least in part - but it isn't clear what these rights are.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So the GLBT advocacy has alarmed many people. Here's an example of the concerns that they have. I am sure the list of protested GLBT agenda items is not purely imaginary. You now have this opportunity to show that the GLBT advocacy is not in fact pushing for these kinds of "special rights" under the facade of "equal rights"....
I think those are basic human rights.
The Bible is NOT to be used for gay-bashing - both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches have officially condemned such homophobia. The petition talks of the possibility of making the mere reading of the bible a criminal offence - that's alarmist nonsence. What SHOULD be forbidden is preaching homophobia through selective use of the bible.
The petition doesn't want 'sensitivity training' in the workplace. How backward-looking. All good employers want a cohesive workforce where there is zero tolerance towards racism etc.
The petition doesn't want LGBT issues raised in sex ed. in schools. Again, how backward-looking. I suppose they want kids to bully the gays. I suppose they also want gay kids to grow up without any support or understanding.
The petition stinks.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
It's a bizarre petition, actually.
Some of us ARE gay and read the Bible in public. I often read the Daily Office with accompanying Bible readings at lunch, quietly at my desk, at work. Why would the petition assume that gay people can't be people of faith too? (Or does this favour selecting certain Bible passages (e.g. Leviticus) and using them to actually threaten gay people?)
The rest of it seems to oppose measures meant to allow gay people to live and work without discrimination and harassment from others and protect the assets of gay couples from being stolen by extended family members. How is living without discrimination and harassment translate into having "special" rights exactly?
Finally adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to corporate, municipal and philanthropic anti-discrimination statements and performing sensitivity training protects heterosexuals as well as gays. Since most harassment is based on perceived sexual orientation rather than actual sexual orientation, heterosexuals may be targeted for harassment, or discrimination, or blackmail as well.
I fail to see what the threat is, and I haven't read a copy of the Homosexual Agenda [tm] in quite a long time.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I'll fix this for you:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This thread would not reach the end of page one
. . . if you had honestly and openly posted what you want to discuss in the first place, because there are already multiple threads on the topic, to which you have added nothing new.
Come down off the cross, Merlin. We need the wood.
hosting
This is getting too close to C3 name calling and personal insults. Please remember that there is an open Hell thread where you can take that sort of thing. It doesn't belong here.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
My apologies to Louise and all.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
@John: way to dismiss "the messenger" by attacking my perspective. I am from Utah, "Hickvill USA"; land of the Mormon fundies. So in your opinion, I am "...totally unaware of what's happening anywhere else in the world." The rest of what follows is equally derogatory. If I was "totally unaware" your opinion would be valid. But it should be obvious by this point that I am far from "totally unaware" of the challenges facing all of us, everywhere, regarding the legalities of the GLBT advocacy agenda.
Actually, it's not at all clear or obvious what your position is. Almost without exception what you have posted has been nastily and subtly anti-gay, based on fiction or -- as I said -- it assumes that your fellow citizens constitute a peculiar group in the world in being unable to cope with or accept what all the rest of us appear to be able to deal with.
You now say a bunch of things about your beliefs that appear to contradict almost all your previous posts. WHich am I to believe? Based on numbers and the variety of your posts, I'm left with the impression of someone profoundly confused, very angry, and not really (at least in his current state of mind) very good at communicating.
I'm not attacking you -- I'm just reacting to what you've said and the way you've said it. When so many people all "misunderstand" you, and all in the same way, maybe the problem is not with them.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What SHOULD be forbidden is preaching homophobia through selective use of the bible.
Do you mean 'forbidden' as in criminally illegal? If so, do you not think that criminalising an interpretation of the Bible with which you do not agree is a rather dangerous step?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
No - free speech is important. Homophobes should have the right to show themselves up by talking nonsence.
My use of the word 'forbidden' was echoing the wording of the petition. My words were probably as badly thought out as those who write the petition.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - free speech is important. Homophobes should have the right to show themselves up by talking nonsence.
That's about the first thing anyone's said on this thread that looks unambiguously right...
And MtM's petition about "special rights" was opposed to workplaces or government offering voluntary sensitivity training programmes.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[ 18. October 2010, 17:31: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I was noticing that the list of supposed "special" rights was nothing of the sort. Since everyone has a "gender identity" and a "sexual orientation", any protections offered are general, not special.
Of course, just as to certain whites race is only something other people have, there's a certain mindset that can't imagine their own sexual orientation being discriminated against so any protections along those lines are for other people.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Since it was mentioned - the original Homosexual Agenda as published years ago on rec.humor.fun and posted numerous places on the web, some versions cleaner than others. Sad thing is, some think it's not humor, but factual.
" I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual.
It follows below:
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM 1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments, 2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle, 3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages, 4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels, 5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership, 6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and 7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.
2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest 4:00 PM Cocktails 6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay) 8:00 PM Theater 11:00 PM Bed (du jour)?"
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Of course anecdotal exceptions to anything can be presented; e.g. the assertion that gays don't get visiting rights in hospitals, or count as "family" (next of kin if they've set up such a relationship via legal channels), etc., I have pointed out are examples of local prejudice, not how the laws can be and ought to be applied. Of course, a comeback points out that I am mistaken: and of course I can point out that I have never known personally of such prejudices, but only heard of them via the media. I have friends who work (and have worked) at hospitals: and I have yet to hear of a single such case of blatant prejudice against gays. It is in the interest of the hospital to benefit the patient as much as possible: to my perspective, any cretin forbidding visiting rights on the basis of being GLBT is a mythical creature! I am sure they must exist if "you" (collective) insist, but I have to take this on faith, since I have no experience with it, nor does anyone else I have known.
Merlin,
I do not want to shock you but some parts of the world have different laws from Utah and/or the USA.
AIUI, in this country, if some-one is in intensive care at hospital, the only person allowed to visit them is the next of kin. If the patient is unconscious, they cannot be consulted about who they would like to be able to visit them and the hospital will follow the letter of the law. Until civil unions came into being, it was impossible for an unmarried partner to be recognised legally as next of kin, regardless of how long the couple had lived together. The legal next of kin is the nearest blood relative and, if the patient is unable to express his/her own wishes, it is the next of kin who makes the decisions on their behalf - leading to the injustices described by Leo.
Just because it does not happen in Utah does not mean that it does not happen anywhere in the world. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Joanna
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
If you believe this to be true of all European men, you clearly have very little knowledge of life here.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Merlin:
The problem with hospitals, visiting, and next-of-kin can and does arise, but not in the way you seem to imagine.
With a reasonably alert, conscious patient, hospitals (at least where I live) don't prohibit visits during visiting hours, period. Pretty much anybody can walk into a patient's room, and unless the patients rings for someone to chuck them out, all goes well.
The problem arises primarily when the patient is not conscious and/or at death's door, and a related-by-blood Next of Kin is notified (usually because we're talking about a youngish person who's been in a serious accident or has fallen suddenly and unexpectedly ill and has made no prior arrangements.
The blood relative is sometimes homophobic, and/or doesn't accept the patient's identity. It's often this person who denies the patient's SO any access to the patient. In lieu of instructions from the patient, the hospital defers to the next-of-kin.
Although the issues were different (terminating life-supports, not visitation), you'll recall the Terry Schiavo case, with parents and husband at each other's throats over what the patient would have wanted.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
...it isn't clear what these rights are.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...
The petition stinks.
Yes it does.
An overview of the battle for and against ENDA shows that the specific demand for and resistance against special mention is all about a special distinction, where, it is asserted by the opponents of ENDA, none is required. A special mention in the anti-discriminatory language places the GLBT advocacy in a specially protected position, i.e. it will be used as a kind of licensed reverse discrimination.
That's one "special right" opposed by those who created that petition.
Yet we have denial that such is even being advocated.
So, you can, perhaps, see my confusion? Everywhere I hear both perspectives. I go online, like right now while I compose this post: and I find "yes they are", and "no we're not", pushing for "special rights"....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
http://www.squidoo.com/gayspecialrights This hits it pretty lucidly, I think. He's all for preserving the definition of "marriage", yet equally all for the same rights and protections for anyone, homosexuals included.
quote:
To be clear, I support a government that establishes protections for voluntary contracts entered into by two consenting adults. If two men or two women desire to legally share in each others fortune or debt, grant medical decision making power to each other, or establish any other coequal status amongst themselves, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Contract protection is indeed one of the few proper functions of government. The act of sexual intercourse should also not be regulated against when it is being carried out by two consenting adults.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
@John: way to dismiss "the messenger" by attacking my perspective. I am from Utah, "Hickvill USA"; land of the Mormon fundies. So in your opinion, I am "...totally unaware of what's happening anywhere else in the world." The rest of what follows is equally derogatory. If I was "totally unaware" your opinion would be valid. But it should be obvious by this point that I am far from "totally unaware" of the challenges facing all of us, everywhere, regarding the legalities of the GLBT advocacy agenda.
Actually, it's not at all clear or obvious what your position is.
I didn't say "position", I said it should be obvious that I am not unaware. Of course my "position" is difficult to understand; it's complicated. So it has been challenging to explain. I tried to approach this with only TWO aspects; same definition of sexual morality, and no "special rights" for GLBT (or anyone). The thread has wallowed in a level of confusion since page one.
quote:
Almost without exception what you have posted has been nastily and subtly anti-gay,...
Not so! That is impossible because I am NOT anti-gay. You are channeling perceptions that do not reflect my feelings at all.
quote:
... based on fiction or -- as I said -- it assumes that your fellow citizens constitute a peculiar group in the world in being unable to cope with or accept what all the rest of us appear to be able to deal with.
"Fiction" would be more accurately stated as a level of ignorance. I have expressed how I distrust the Media because it focuses on the sensational, the bizarre, the popular fears of the majority, etc. I started this thread with the intent to show or disprove the assertion in the thread title. So far nothing has been made clear either way. It appears that the GLBT extremists do indeed want special treatment/mention/rights; the main mass of homosexuals claim to want equality only.
quote:
You now say a bunch of things about your beliefs that appear to contradict almost all your previous posts.
I would like you to compare a couple of examples, so I can see what you are talking about. I am sure I can explain why you think this: quote:
...I'm left with the impression of someone profoundly confused, very angry, and not really (at least in his current state of mind) very good at communicating.
Yes to the last part. Obviously I don't communicate well for you. But I am not angry or "profoundly confused": just confused, somewhat, by the two-sided character of the GLBT political agenda to address the inequities in the law, vis-a-vis, compared to married people's rights.
quote:
I'm not attacking you -- I'm just reacting to what you've said and the way you've said it. When so many people all "misunderstand" you, and all in the same way, maybe the problem is not with them.
John
Well, help me out, then. Point out where the apparent dichotomy of my statements has caused the difficulty. I am willing to learn from this....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments.
If you believe this to be true of all European men, you clearly have very little knowledge of life here.
England doesn't count ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I was thinking of more Bohemian parts of Europe, maybe France or Italy in particular. And I was certainly not assuming ALL or even most men show their affection in public this way. But it is accepted and common....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,
I do not want to shock you but some parts of the world have different laws from Utah and/or the USA.
You can give up the patronizing, I won't mind, really.
quote:
...
Just because it does not happen in Utah does not mean that it does not happen anywhere in the world.
I am sure that enequities happen in Utah! I just haven't heard of any blatant, homophobic discrimination. Obviously, if a patient is comatose, and the SO wants to be at the bedside; and the parents, siblings, et al. blood kin want the SO kept away, it's going to happen regardless of any other considerations. No amount of writing "special" protective verbiage is going to prevent these occasions. The same is true of heterosexual couples who are only common law; any next of kin trump the common law spouse if there is a conflict of interest. The hospital staff are not going to endanger the patient by allowing acrimony at the hospital. Someone is going to be kept out, and it is going to be the "stranger". Any civil suits brought resulting from said-estrangement will of course be worked out to the best of the court's ability, and not always justly....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
http://www.squidoo.com/gayspecialrights This hits it pretty lucidly, I think. He's all for preserving the definition of "marriage", yet equally all for the same rights and protections for anyone, homosexuals included.
It may be lucid, but it just demonstrates a insistence on defining things to create results worthy of Catch-22 or Kafka.
It's basically a viewpoint that says only direct discrimination on the face of a law counts. Indirect discrimination, in terms of differential impact that isn't justified, is ignored.
Human rights law got past this point about 40 years ago.
Of course a law that says "no-one can marry a person of the same gender as themselves" is neutral on its face. It applies to everyone equally. But if you think that makes it non-discriminatory, you are deliberately choosing the most obtuse/blunt definition of discrimination.
A law that forbids anyone from playing water polo is non-discriminatory in your book. I can just imagine all the people who've never attempted to play water polo and have no interest in trying it shrugging their shoulders and saying "what's the problem?"
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.
BTW, that post is full of all kinds of the usual misinformation; the "average disposable income" for gay people is based on marketing surveys in high-end magazines. In other words, the people responding are already in higher-income brackets (they bought the high-end magazine) - and it only contains information from people who choose to respond! A self-selected group, IOW, surveyed by companies who want to sell them products.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Obviously, if a patient is comatose, and the SO wants to be at the bedside; and the parents, siblings, et al. blood kin want the SO kept away, it's going to happen regardless of any other considerations. No amount of writing "special" protective verbiage is going to prevent these occasions. The same is true of heterosexual couples who are only common law; any next of kin trump the common law spouse if there is a conflict of interest. The hospital staff are not going to endanger the patient by allowing acrimony at the hospital. Someone is going to be kept out, and it is going to be the "stranger". Any civil suits brought resulting from said-estrangement will of course be worked out to the best of the court's ability, and not always justly....
Which is why there is a need for gay marriage. because in a legal marriage, the _spouse_ is the legal next of kin.
You have proved the point yourself.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments.
If you believe this to be true of all European men, you clearly have very little knowledge of life here.
Footballers though...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
A law that forbids anyone from playing water polo is non-discriminatory in your book. I can just imagine all the people who've never attempted to play water polo and have no interest in trying it shrugging their shoulders and saying "what's the problem?"
A silly analogy, imho; since marriage IS just about the most common institution in the world. It happens to also be the most important to most people. It has a name. If you would accept the challenge to come up with a special name for your special arrangement, instead of trying to topple the apple cart, there would not be an issue regarding equal rights.
You're ignoring the central qualifier to the issue of definition: "marriage" can be preserved just as it has always been. As clarified and admitted: hardly anyone in the USA is against equal rights, protections included, for homosexuals or any other minority.
The writer invites gays to come up with their own (creative, imaginative) term for their unions: Which will be precisely the same rights, privileges and obligations as "marriage". Since the gender attraction issue is the "difference" brought up by homosexuals themselves, it is up to them to define that difference with a word/term for their civil unions, instead of insisting that the majority are wrong to point out that that difference even matters. It obviously matters to "you" a great deal. And it also matters to the heterosexual majority.
At one and the same time, you are saying "We're Gay" and insisting that the distinction isn't worthy of mention in the marriage laws (unless, of course, you can win a special mention of gender not being a qualifier): AND fighting to include "sexual orientation/gender identity" to the "suspect classes" in the discrimination laws. The minority protection status is created by the GLBT advocacy itself. This is a natural reaction from a marginalized group who are fighting for equality. But it also validates the majority's fight to preserve the definition of "marriage" as traditional heterosexual monogamy.
Therefore you have nothing to argue for except a prideful desire to give some "payback" for all the generations of homosexuals who have lived in their private hells of fear and deprivation....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.
As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.
quote:
BTW, that post is full of all kinds of the usual misinformation; the "average disposable income" for gay people is based on marketing surveys in high-end magazines. In other words, the people responding are already in higher-income brackets (they bought the high-end magazine) - and it only contains information from people who choose to respond! A self-selected group, IOW, surveyed by companies who want to sell them products.
I saw that "disposable income" item because of its having been challenged by a post on this thread. A mistaken piece of information does not invalidate all the other worthy rebuttal points....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
quote:
Obviously, if a patient is comatose, and the SO wants to be at the bedside; and the parents, siblings, et al. blood kin want the SO kept away, it's going to happen regardless of any other considerations. No amount of writing "special" protective verbiage is going to prevent these occasions. The same is true of heterosexual couples who are only common law; any next of kin trump the common law spouse if there is a conflict of interest. The hospital staff are not going to endanger the patient by allowing acrimony at the hospital. Someone is going to be kept out, and it is going to be the "stranger". Any civil suits brought resulting from said-estrangement will of course be worked out to the best of the court's ability, and not always justly....
Which is why there is a need for gay marriage. because in a legal marriage, the _spouse_ is the legal next of kin.
You have proved the point yourself.
Yes, I have agreed that a SO ought, in a legal union, to have the very same rights in a hospital as a wife or husband does. But as you can see from the posts this morning, calling it "marriage" is not required to provide this for homosexual unions....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Merlin, at this point it ought to be clear that the word "marriage" has a million different meanings, depending on who's talking about it and for what reason. At times, it seems to be primarily about children; at other times, primarily about love. For some people it's about companionship and the desire not to be alone; for others it's a financial and legal arrangement. For still others - like George Bush - it's "the sacred institution."
Well, it's really not "sacred" in the public square, where it instead has to do with creating the state of being "related" when not related by blood. It's a legal definition, IOW. It may be sacred to those who are church members - which is fine. They can continue to have their marriages sacralized; nothing can or will affect this.
In fact, all civil marriages are just that: "civil marriage." How's that for an acceptable term? If heterosexuals wish to drop the qualifier and just talk about their "marriages" in order to disqualify the gays from the state of matrimony - well, it's a free country.
It's true that "marriage" was a sort of secular sacred cow that straight people weren't comfortable with sharing with gay people - but I think that time is coming to an end. Younger people don't have the same feelings; they recognize that marriage today is about many things - but that it's primarily a civil institution at this point.
And it's pretty silly, anyway, to have two entirely separate sets of laws that do exactly the same thing; it's what you might call ridiculous, in fact - and I think people are realizing this at last.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.
As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.
Well, to be consistent, you'll need to start advocating to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In any case, I'm not sure why you think there needs to be some sort of logical consistency here. The choice of a name for a legal relationship has, literally, nothing in common with the problem of employment discrimination. And, in fact, you seem to have a logical problem yourself, as I mentioned above - to wit, why the need for two totally separate sets of laws that do exactly the same thing? That's pretty incoherent, really - particularly when the legality of marriage is determined, mostly, on a state-by-state basis. That's now 50 sets of duplicated laws! Seems a bit off-the-wall to me, but of course it'll mean long-term job security for thousands of state employees. (To be honest, I personally don't care what you call it: marriage, civil union, etc. And in fact I advocated for "civil union" myself - but then realized it was just a silly redundancy based on almost nothing. Marriage can still be sacred to people if they wish it - or else, call all civil marriages "civil unions," if that makes people feel better. I don't care.)
Speaking of making no sense, your last sentence doesn't; what are you trying to say?
[ 19. October 2010, 15:46: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.
If so, you are being just as illogical by not wanting anti-discrimination laws to mention homosexuals as a distinct class, but wanting them to call their marriages something else because they are in a separate class.
But the main point is that you are wrong about why "differences" get mentioned in discrimination legislation. It is because they are irrelevant differences as far as ‘treating people fairly' is concerned. Not employing someone who is black matters, not because ‘blackness' is an important difference for employment purposes, but because it isn't. It ought to be of no consequence at all whether one employs a black person or a white one. Fairness requires that they be treated the same.
That's not to say that a person can't feel that being black is an important part of his or her identity or culture. Of course they can. The point is that it is not the sort of distinction that ought to count against them in employment or other rights. It's the same for "homosexual". It's makes a difference to personal identity, but it is utterly irrelevant when it comes to fair treatment. That's why "sexual orientation" belongs with "race", "religion", "sex", "nationality", "disability" and so on in anti-discrimination laws: those are things that should make no difference at all to a person's entitlement to just and equal treatment, regardless of their personal importance.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
... Het couples (and singles) don't seem bothered in the least that "marriage" is used of same-sex marriages.
...
I think you have made an unsupportable assumption here. There are a large number of people opposed to homosexual 'marriage' who have resigned themselves to the fact that the law has been changed and will not revert back so there is no reason to continue to make a fuss. That does not mean we are not bothered by it. Sometimes it is reasonable to recognize defeat and move on.
The focus for many is now, how does one deal with the fact that it is legal while ensuring one has no part in it.
For example, clergy are quietly taking steps to ensure they will never be coerced to perform a homosexual 'marriage'.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.
As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.
Well, to be consistent, you'll need to start advocating to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In any case, I'm not sure why you think there needs to be some sort of logical consistency here. The choice of a name for a legal relationship has, literally, nothing in common with the problem of employment discrimination. And, in fact, you seem to have a logical problem yourself, as I mentioned above - to wit, why the need for two totally separate sets of laws that do exactly the same thing?
Why the duplication assertion? All that is required is the same approach to the "suspect class" clauses in the anti discrimination laws. In the case of the "marriage" laws, we simply include every term of what "legal union" means: "marriage between one man and one woman, civil union between any two consenting adults", etc.
quote:
That's pretty incoherent, really - particularly when the legality of marriage is determined, mostly, on a state-by-state basis. That's now 50 sets of duplicated laws!
Yes, 50 state marriage laws. But all recognized under the ruling of the SCOTUS that they all apply in the several states and are equally, legally binding and protecting regardless of their differences. There's no reason why a "suspect class" qualifier on the Fed level, applying to all the states equally, can't be added so that the various legal terms of what constitutes a "legal union" cover them all.
quote:
... And in fact I advocated for "civil union" myself - but then realized it was just a silly redundancy based on almost nothing. Marriage can still be sacred to people if they wish it - or else, call all civil marriages "civil unions," if that makes people feel better. I don't care.)
Speaking of making no sense, your last sentence doesn't; what are you trying to say?
It will make a lot of people feel better. It would make me feel better.
It doesn't make sense that most heterosexuals want "marriage" respected as the definition of the legal union between a man and a woman? And the same men and women want homosexuals to have access to legal unions that define each partner as possessing the very same rights, privileges and obligations - just don't call it "marriage"?...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't make sense that most heterosexuals want "marriage" respected as the definition of the legal union between a man and a woman? And the same men and women want homosexuals to have access to legal unions that define each partner as possessing the very same rights, privileges and obligations - just don't call it "marriage"?...
OK, I get it now; it was hard to tell what you meant because one thought extended over two sentences.
I am curious as to why you care so much what the government does, though. Isn't it the cultural aspect that concerns you here? That's what it seems to be, anyway. And since heterosexuals are the vast majority and always will be, can't you continue to disdain the idea of "homosexual marriage" as you now do, and keep that cultural ideal intact? Surely it's irrelevant what legal name is given to something you don't believe exists anyway....? Nobody can force to you "accept" anybody you don't like; the only request is to treat people equitably.
(Or perhaps you're just ticked off at "gay activists" in general and venting spleen? You seem to have a lot of resentment about a lot of different issues here.)
I do think the states will object to the two sets of laws, though - and so will others, who will see it as blatant discrimination. As I said, I don't personally care much, because I'm not that interested in what the government does. It does a lot of stupid things and it's a waste of time getting exercised over most of them.
And no, sharkshooter - clergy won't be forced to marry anybody, any more than they're forced to do it today. (i.e., The Catholic Church doesn't have to marry divorced people, etc.)
The hysteria about this is really way over the top sometimes....
[ 19. October 2010, 17:22: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.
If so, you are being just as illogical by not wanting anti-discrimination laws to mention homosexuals as a distinct class, but wanting them to call their marriages something else because they are in a separate class.
I haven't said that. It would be fine to include "sexual orientation/gender identity" to the anti discrimination laws, if that is deemed necessary to secure equal protection.
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc. Any such discrimination is already addressed and the media picks up on it right away; and the bigot is made to look very bad: and all without any changes required to the "suspect class" clauses already listed.
quote:
But the main point is that you are wrong about why "differences" get mentioned in discrimination legislation. It is because they are irrelevant differences as far as ‘treating people fairly' is concerned. Not employing someone who is black matters, not because ‘blackness' is an important difference for employment purposes, but because it isn't. It ought to be of no consequence at all whether one employs a black person or a white one. Fairness requires that they be treated the same.
Yes. To add "sexual orientation/gender identity" to the classes is tantamount to admitting that wants are sufficient to create minorities capable of being discriminated against. Hair color, clothing preferences, education levels, preferences in food, etc. ad nauseam, can ALL be pleaded for on equal grounds as "sexual orientation/gender identity". Who are you or who am I to say that an individual has a choice in what they want? Given the vast complexity of the brain's chemistry, and the imperatives inculcated as part of a child's upbringing, deep-seated wants of any sort can be as impossible to deny as sexual orientation.
An employer could hate just about anything about anyone: so the anti discrimination "suspect classes" ought to not be considered an attempt, or necessary, to include all possible classes: but rather is meant to be logically illustrating that NO discrimination based on prejudice is to be tolerated, period. Like the Bill of Rights, which makes no attempt to be exhaustive in listing all the civil rights of the individual: the anti discrimination "suspect classes" can't practically list all of the classes. So we seem to agree on this at least.
quote:
That's not to say that a person can't feel that being black is an important part of his or her identity or culture. Of course they can. The point is that it is not the sort of distinction that ought to count against them in employment or other rights. It's the same for "homosexual". It's makes a difference to personal identity, but it is utterly irrelevant when it comes to fair treatment. That's why "sexual orientation" belongs with "race", "religion", "sex", "nationality", "disability" and so on in anti-discrimination laws: those are things that should make no difference at all to a person's entitlement to just and equal treatment, regardless of their personal importance.
It belongs with the list. But so too does every other perceivable distinction. I personally don't care if sexual orientation/identifying gets added to the anti discrimination laws: what's one more class listed going to do? Nothing, by itself. But IF the GLBT advocacy succeeds (as I suspect that they will) in getting "marriage" to include every perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults (or, if the polygs get their way, piggy-backing on the GLBT advocacy's victory, any number of consenting adults), then thousands of years of definition of what "marriage" has meant will be rendered obsolete. We are free to redefine words all we want to. But there is a large segment of society who prefer to leave well enough alone as much as possible. A lot of people don't welcome unnecessary change and the instability it causes....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
