my position on civil unions

[amx]

perhaps it's because of people like you who think homosexuals and bisexuals should be second-class citizens.

Trousers,
I feel no such way. People who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle are still people that I love. They are people with the same rights and priviledges as any other individuals in society and usually they have more advantages than the average individual. They are more likely to have higher education and more likely to have traveled abroad. At the same time they are less likely to have the four score and ten years allotted to the rest of us. If you are this angry about the way your life has gone there is hope for you today with Christ and there is support to leave this lifestyle that will probably lead to a short unhappy life. I want you to have long life, freedom from sin and the joy that only can be found in a life centered on Christ.

 

[Shane Roach]

You seem to base much of your argument on a purported distinction between the respective desire of gay vs. straight couples when it comes to having children.

No I don't seem to do any such thing. I am pointing out that it is just a fact that gays are not going to have children together. By and large, straight couples will. That's just how it is.

There may be fewer gay and lesbian couples with children than there are straight couples, but in America today 8 to 10 million children are being raised in gay and lesbian households. Also, there are many couples both gay and straight that remain unapologetically childless throughout their lives (like Oprah and Stedman) . . . does that mean they aren't a family? Is a family's worth measured by its numbers? Is a marriage worth less if it is childless?

I said once a gay couple finds themselves with kids that this becomes a compelling case for the state to be involved in legislating benefits. It has nothing to do with all the sobbing emotionalism of the relative "worth" in spirutual terms of someone's love. As I said, I could care less who gets a certificate, goes to church for some sort of ceremony, etc. The concerns of the state concerning the children of gay caretakers are going to, by the very dynamics of the relationship, going to NEED to be different than couples who have their own children, where the responsibilites are defined as them being the parents. Some gay couples may want to adopt. Some will end up with a child because a relative dies, and one may or may not want to adopt. They may divorce and the child may be related to the one, but now that they are both adoptive parents, what then are the rights of the one that is not actually related. The whole thing is different at every level.

The fact that the Massachussets Supreme Court finds itself to be an authority on the spiritual meaning of marriage is perhaps the scariest part of this. Talk about a violation of the separation of church and state.

 

[Shane Roach]

I guess the thing that makes this too easy for me to get overly angry about is always it is set up that if you don't agree with this you are just some meany. It's just not allowed to talk rationally about this as a public policy decision, and that's just wrong. Plus there is just the obvious political tie between the far left and the far right and this being a wedge issue.

 

[beechy]

I guess the thing that makes this too easy for me to get overly angry about is always it is set up that if you don't agree with this you are just some meany. It's just not allowed to talk rationally about this as a public policy decision, and that's just wrong. Plus there is just the obvious political tie between the far left and the far right and this being a wedge issue.

I believe I'm speaking rationally as well. We just don't agree on what the rational conclusion is.

Rationally speaking, I think that civil marriage does not have to be about spiritualism (where did the Massachusetts Supreme Court talk about the spirituality of marriage, as you accuse them of doing in your above post?), but it is undeniably about something very personal and emotional. The relationship between two married people is not a simply business arrangement among strangers, and it would be silly to pretend that it is.

If what scares you about the Massachusetts Court's rhetoric is that it dips into a personal and emotional realm, and you don't think the state should be involved in that realm, then maybe you would agree that the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. But I haven't heard you say this, or if you did I missed it. However, since the state does recognize civil marriage, we can't act surprised that it characterizes the nature of the relationships at issue in personal, rather than clinical, terms. Do you think of civil marriage as simply a contractual partnership between two like-minded individuals? All the court was saying is that they acknowledge it as a deeply personal decision with intangible as well as legal benefits, and that people should be able to experience it if they find someone they're willing to commit to.

 

[beechy]

No I don't seem to do any such thing. I am pointing out that it is just a fact that gays are not going to have children together. By and large, straight couples will. That's just how it is.



I said once a gay couple finds themselves with kids that this becomes a compelling case for the state to be involved in legislating benefits. It has nothing to do with all the sobbing emotionalism of the relative "worth" in spirutual terms of someone's love. As I said, I could care less who gets a certificate, goes to church for some sort of ceremony, etc. The concerns of the state concerning the children of gay caretakers are going to, by the very dynamics of the relationship, going to NEED to be different than couples who have their own children, where the responsibilites are defined as them being the parents. Some gay couples may want to adopt. Some will end up with a child because a relative dies, and one may or may not want to adopt. They may divorce and the child may be related to the one, but now that they are both adoptive parents, what then are the rights of the one that is not actually related. The whole thing is different at every level.

The fact that the Massachussets Supreme Court finds itself to be an authority on the spiritual meaning of marriage is perhaps the scariest part of this. Talk about a violation of the separation of church and state.

Although you declare it a "fact" that "gays are not going to have children together," you also acknowledge that some do through adoption (and, I'll add, sperm donation and surrogacy). These options make children just as feasible for a gay couple who wants them as it does for a straight couple who wants them. So why should legal recognition of a committed gay relationship be conditioned on the realization of children, while legal recognition of straight relationships isn't? Where's the logic in that? What's more, marriage laws and benefits apply and effect a relationship whether or not there are children involved, and even in cases where a couple decides they don't want any children.

 

[Shane Roach]

Although you declare it a "fact" that "gays are not going to have children together," you also acknowledge that some do through adoption (and, I'll add, sperm donation and surrogacy). These options make children just as feasible for a gay couple who wants them as it does for a straight couple who wants them. So why should legal recognition of a committed gay relationship be conditioned on the realization of children, while legal recognition of straight relationships isn't? Where's the logic in that? What's more, marriage laws and benefits apply and effect a relationship whether or not there are children involved, and even in cases where a couple decides they don't want any children.

First off, I have to try to back off on my tone, and you responded well despite my tone, so thanks.

Having said that, I do not understand this pretense that there is some sort of even close call between the number of gay relationships where children are involved and the number of heterosexual relationships of the same. Furthermore, adopting is just not the same as having kids. You more or less HAVE to be financially stable before you adopt, or if not there is a big problem with the adoption process. That goes whether straight or hetero.

The marriage tradition in the west with all its add ons and benefits of late is specifically about kids. If marriage did not have all the additional govt benefits and job benefits involved, it would remove my last objection to it, but they are there and ultimately as I have said repeatedly I see it as nothing but a political ploy and a method for syphoning off more money to the democratic consituency. I do not see the gay marriage issue as one that has a single solitary thing to do with love. If it were all about love, then gays would have been living in loving homes together for centuries. Turns out not to be the case pretty much anywhere. The emphasis has never been marriage and family, and even if it is legalized and set in motion I doubt seriously that it will change, which is one big reason I don't care whether there are certificates or churches that do it.

 

[Shane Roach]

If what scares you about the Massachusetts Court's rhetoric is that it dips into a personal and emotional realm, and you don't think the state should be involved in that realm, then maybe you would agree that the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. But I haven't heard you say this, or if you did I missed it. However, since the state does recognize civil marriage, we can't act surprised that it characterizes the nature of the relationships at issue in personal, rather than clinical, terms. Do you think of civil marriage as simply a contractual partnership between two like-minded individuals? All the court was saying is that they acknowledge it as a deeply personal decision with intangible as well as legal benefits, and that people should be able to experience it if they find someone they're willing to commit to.

There was a time when this was exactly what I believed, but then I was attacked for it and I discovered that at least in my experience that there is absolutely nothing about this initiative to normalize gay marriage that has anything to do with rational public policy. At this point I resist it at its most fundamental level, as a policy decision. Money for gays and gays alone to the exclusion of other groups of people who may have legitimate reasons to cohabit is not something the government should be a part of. Either marriage is about something, or nothing, and if it was about nothing, frankly, I don't think it would have ever occured to any politicians to lobby for it. They know there's money in it.

Emotional marriage is for people to do as they wish. Governmental recognition and mandated for benefits are for practical purposes, and practically speaking the main focus needs to remain on our already embattled nuclear family.

 

[beechy]

First off, I have to try to back off on my tone, and you responded well despite my tone, so thanks.

Having said that, I do not understand this pretense that there is some sort of even close call between the number of gay relationships where children are involved and the number of heterosexual relationships of the same. Furthermore, adopting is just not the same as having kids. You more or less HAVE to be financially stable before you adopt, or if not there is a big problem with the adoption process. That goes whether straight or hetero.

The marriage tradition in the west with all its add ons and benefits of late is specifically about kids. If marriage did not have all the additional govt benefits and job benefits involved, it would remove my last objection to it, but they are there and ultimately as I have said repeatedly I see it as nothing but a political ploy and a method for syphoning off more money to the democratic consituency. I do not see the gay marriage issue as one that has a single solitary thing to do with love. If it were all about love, then gays would have been living in loving homes together for centuries. Turns out not to be the case pretty much anywhere. The emphasis has never been marriage and family, and even if it is legalized and set in motion I doubt seriously that it will change, which is one big reason I don't care whether there are certificates or churches that do it.

I'm not trying to say that the number of gay couples with children approximates the number of straight couples of children -- that's clearly not true, and hardly surprising given that (depending on which statistics you believe) only a small percentage of the general population is gay. And I'm not sure what the relevancy of your comment about financial stability and adoption. Do you think all adoptive parents are rich? Do you think there are credit checks at sperm banks? Do you think financial stability is a bad thing? Also, there are lots of marriage benefits that don't depend on or involve children.

As for why gays haven't "lived in loving homes together for centuries," don't you think that might have something to do with homosexuality being a cultural taboo, indeed a crime in every state in the union as recently as 1960?

Marriage is about love, darlin'. Every night I have the privilege of coming home to my beautiful girlfriend I feel that all the way through my fingertips. If I could marry her, I would. It would certainly save us lots of money on lawyer fees as we anticipate having to draft up a complicated legal thicket of our own to protect ourselves and each other in ways that straight couples take for granted.

 

[NPH]

No I don't seem to do any such thing. I am pointing out that it is just a fact that gays are not going to have children together. By and large, straight couples will. That's just how it is.

And in a strange quirk of fate, gay couples are not getting abortions and yet heterosexuals are in distressingly greater numbers each year! Perhaps we should ban hetero's from marriage then since they can't be trusted with their own procreativity?

Or in other words, this has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage =/= Parenting.

If it were all about love, then gays would have been living in loving homes together for centuries. Turns out not to be the case pretty much anywhere.

Beechy said it best, but you have to realize that this is one of the most disgustingly ridiculous things that could have been said. "Let's deny them a normal existence and then tell them they should not be allowed a normal existence because they've never had one. Ain't that a hoot of an idea! LOL!!!111!!!"

Money for gays and gays alone to the exclusion of other groups of people who may have legitimate reasons to cohabit is not something the government should be a part of.

Hey, I agree with you here! But here's a nifty trick, switch every occurence of 'gays' in this quote with the word 'straights' and see if you still agree with what you wrote so well

Sorry if I seem a bit overaggressive, but i've been getting quite upset with the persecution of homosexuals by 'Christians' lately and that really really ignorant comment about 'loving homes for centuries' just broke the old camel's back.

 

[Shane Roach]

I'm not trying to say that the number of gay couples with children approximates the number of straight couples of children -- that's clearly not true, and hardly surprising given that (depending on which statistics you believe) only a small percentage of the general population is gay. And I'm not sure what the relevancy of your comment about financial stability and adoption. Do you think all adoptive parents are rich? Do you think there are credit checks at sperm banks? Do you think financial stability is a bad thing? Also, there are lots of marriage benefits that don't depend on or involve children.

The problem is that they are here for the children. They are not there just to help people live together. People who live together who are not anticipating children are already ahead of the game as they are sharing expenses. The point of adoption is that it is going to have to be the main way most gays come to have kids, and therefore there is going to be releatively little need for them to have finincial support from the government or to be mandated to be included on benefit packages of workers. For the most part, gays can both work, and there is no need for them to have benefits to pad them financially the way a family that would EXPECT as a near certainty to have children needs to do.

As for why gays haven't "lived in loving homes together for centuries," don't you think that might have something to do with homosexuality being a cultural taboo, indeed a crime in every state in the union as recently as 1960?

There are other countries in the world besides this one. If the prejudice against homosexuality were so unique to western cultures, one would expect worldwide to see some huge difference in how homosexuals relate. In fact, there is not really. There appear to be some handful of cultures that are not as against it as the west has been, and a TINY handful that do have marriage for gays even, though it is entirely religiously motivated it seems, or that is the only example I have ever heard. I think the reality is that it is just plain what a family is usually going to consist of, and that that happens to be exactly what marriage tends to consist of.

Marriage is about love, darlin'. Every night I have the privilege of coming home to my beautiful girlfriend I feel that all the way through my fingertips. If I could marry her, I would. It would certainly save us lots of money on lawyer fees as we anticipate having to draft up a complicated legal thicket of our own to protect ourselves and each other in ways that straight couples take for granted.

Marriage is NOT about love. Love is about love. Marriage is about social order and commitments. The history of marriage is absolutely REPLETE with examples of how marriage is not about love. What happens if you marry someone and fall out of love? Aren't you supposed to work to get back into the groove? Or if not, what is the point of marriage at all? WHY are you supposed to work at marriage even if it is hard? Is it not because taking care of your family is one of the most basic duties we all have as members of a society? I don't want to overstate the case, because naturally EVERYONE wants their marrige to be about love, but that is not at all what marrige is all about. If it were all about love there would be no NEED for marriage. People would just love each other.

 

[beechy]

The problem is that they are here for the children. They are not there just to help people live together. People who live together who are not anticipating children are already ahead of the game as they are sharing expenses. The point of adoption is that it is going to have to be the main way most gays come to have kids, and therefore there is going to be releatively little need for them to have finincial support from the government or to be mandated to be included on benefit packages of workers. For the most part, gays can both work, and there is no need for them to have benefits to pad them financially the way a family that would EXPECT as a near certainty to have children needs to do.

Another problem is that marriage laws don't apply only to couples with children. If they did, your argument might make sense.

I'm still a little confused by your adoption talk, btw. You say, "for the most part, gays can both work." I don't get it. Is the other side of this coin, "for the most part, straights can't"? After a woman gives birth (be she gay or straight), her body will need a little time to recover, but then she can work . . . or not . . . just like an adoptive parent.

There are other countries in the world besides this one. If the prejudice against homosexuality were so unique to western cultures, one would expect worldwide to see some huge difference in how homosexuals relate. In fact, there is not really. There appear to be some handful of cultures that are not as against it as the west has been, and a TINY handful that do have marriage for gays even, though it is entirely religiously motivated it seems, or that is the only example I have ever heard. I think the reality is that it is just plain what a family is usually going to consist of, and that that happens to be exactly what marriage tends to consist of.

I didn't say that prejudice against homosexulaity is unique to western cultures.

Marriage is NOT about love. Love is about love. Marriage is about social order and commitments. The history of marriage is absolutely REPLETE with examples of how marriage is not about love. What happens if you marry someone and fall out of love? Aren't you supposed to work to get back into the groove? Or if not, what is the point of marriage at all? WHY are you supposed to work at marriage even if it is hard? Is it not because taking care of your family is one of the most basic duties we all have as members of a society? I don't want to overstate the case, because naturally EVERYONE wants their marrige to be about love, but that is not at all what marrige is all about. If it were all about love there would be no NEED for marriage. People would just love each other.

I'm going to continue to respectfully disagree here. Marriage is about love. Some peoples' marriages may, sadly, become loveless, but I'd venture that that isn't what most people hope for when they enter into it. And I think there is value and beauty in being committed to someone, and working at staying together, even if you don't have kids. If you do have kids, that's yet another compelling reason to make things work.

 

[beechy]

There was a time when this was exactly what I believed, but then I was attacked for it and I discovered that at least in my experience that there is absolutely nothing about this initiative to normalize gay marriage that has anything to do with rational public policy. At this point I resist it at its most fundamental level, as a policy decision. Money for gays and gays alone to the exclusion of other groups of people who may have legitimate reasons to cohabit is not something the government should be a part of. Either marriage is about something, or nothing, and if it was about nothing, frankly, I don't think it would have ever occured to any politicians to lobby for it. They know there's money in it.

Emotional marriage is for people to do as they wish. Governmental recognition and mandated for benefits are for practical purposes, and practically speaking the main focus needs to remain on our already embattled nuclear family.

"Money for gays and gays alone to the exclusion of other groups of people who may have legitimate reasons to cohabite." Whatever do you mean?

Once again: The government sanctions and recognizes a committed relationship between two individuals to the exclusion of all others which it calls marriage. That relationship has been dubbed very personal in nature and a fundamental right (see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia). It has been recognized time and time again that central to that right is an element of choice, i.e., your ability to choose your spouse (or, as you so romantically prefer, your "cohabitor"). (See the Mass Supreme Court cite in my above posts).

So what's this money and gays and exclusion of other groups talk?

 

[Bunnaroo]

So what's this money and gays and exclusion of other groups talk?

For the moment, let me take this discussion to a different location.

[Steps out of the Christian community.] Are you following me? Come over here. [Stops in front of the National Headquarters of Giganto Corporation.] Here's a good spot...

Now, lets look at this from money perspective. I need an average number here, but my employer pays for 75% of my medical insurance. I suspect that other employers have a similar ratio. If I am the benefits administrator for a company, or an underwriter for a large insurance company, I'm going to be wary of this situation. We're looking at increasing the cost of insurance for everyone, since we're looking at covering more people. We're also looking at having to cover illnesses that are more likely to occur in certain situations. As the benefits admin, I have the choice of passing this new cost to the company, passing the new cost to the employees (fairly and evenly, of course. No need for the homosexual couples to feel unfairly treated.), or to drop the coverage. Lately, companies have been taking the final option, paving the way for insurance benefits to go the way of the company pension. *pft!* As the underwriter, I'm faced with the decision of either increasing revenue, which encourages people to drop our product, or limiting coverage for certain medical conditions, which also encourages people to drop our product. This issue is more than religious or social. It's also financial.
By the way, medical insurance is a perquisite, not a right. It has become a popular one, because of the higher cost of medical care, but companies are under no legal compulsion to offer medical insurance.

Let's carry on. [Walks over to City Hall.] Here's another place that can use extra revenue. [Has a seat on the Courthouse Steps.] I'm sure the extra paperwork and clerical staff, with the acommpanying costs, for a new form of legal entity will be appreciated. That's money that could be used for education, police protection, firefighters, or medical care for the poor. The money that has been spent in places like this have taken up time for other business of the state.

I don't like hanging out here, and anyway I've one more stop to make. [Stands up and walks around City Hall to the Public Library.] The references in this building, written by really smart people with Ph.D.s, tell me that the civil rights movement came about after two centuries of state-endorsed slavery and about another century of mistreatment of the freedmen. Another tome points out the Women's Suffrage Movement won victory only in the last century, and women had been placed secondary to men for eons before that. Here's another book of historic lore about the desendents of Israel. They still have little peace, and that has gone on longer than recorded history.
I find little data about the sufferings of homosexuals. I don't see them as having been treated as chattel for decades, nor have they been disallowed to own property or denied the franchise. Dang, I can't tell a homosexual from a heterosexual at 20 paces, there's no identifying mark or physical trait. I'm sorry, I don't see how this is a Civil Rights issue. There isn't enough suffering for me to see a necessity for the government to seek redress.

Well, this junket wasn't very useful. I'm sorry if I've wasted your time. Let's go back to the Christian Compound...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

"Money for gays and gays alone to the exclusion of other groups of people who may have legitimate reasons to cohabite." Whatever do you mean?

Once again: The government sanctions and recognizes a committed relationship between two individuals to the exclusion of all others which it calls marriage. That relationship has been dubbed very personal in nature and a fundamental right (see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia).

Loving v. Virginia was about a interracial marriage involving A MAN and A WOMAN facing criminal punishment from the State - NOT a federal precedent for same-gender marriage... that is unless you know of a recent SCOTUS ruling that I may have missed.

It has been recognized time and time again that central to that right is an element of choice, i.e., your ability to choose your spouse (or, as you so romantically prefer, your "cohabitor"). (See the Mass Supreme Court cite in my above posts)...

Since there seems to be some sort of authority given to an opinion submitted to the Mass. Senate, perhaps we may wish to look at the opposing opinion also given by your submission. :

Additional excerpt~
"... In response to the court's invitation to submit amicus briefs on this question, we have received, from both sides of the issue, impassioned and sweeping rhetoric out of all proportion to the narrow question before us. Both sides appear to have ignored the fundamental import of the proposed legislation, namely, that same-sex couples who are civilly "united" will have literally every single right, privilege, benefit, and obligation of every sort that our State law confers on opposite-sex couples who are civilly "married." Under this proposed bill, there are no substantive differences left to dispute -- there is only, on both sides, a squabble over the name to be used.1[6] There is, from the amici on one side, an implacable determination to retain some distinction, however trivial, between the institution created for same-sex couples and the institution that is available to opposite-sex couples. And, from the amici on the other side, there is an equally implacable determination that no distinction, no matter how meaningless, be tolerated. As a result, we have a pitched battle over who gets to use the "m" word.

This does not strike me as a dispute of any constitutional dimension whatsoever, and today's response from the Justices -- unsurprisingly -- cites to no precedent suggesting that the choice of differing titles for various statutory programs has ever posed an issue of constitutional dimension, here or anywhere else. And, rather than engage in any constitutional analysis of the claimed statutory naming rights, today's answer to the Senate's question merely repeats the impassioned rhetoric that has been submitted to us as if it were constitutional law, opining that any difference in names represents an "attempt to circumvent" the court's decision in Goodridge. Ante at ..." "

Of course, given the nature of the evidence you submitted, we can trade excerpts back an forth on this quite often. It is after all a lengthy collection of for, opposed and uncommitted.

 

[jazzbird]

MOD HAT

I am temporarily closing this thread because there are many people who are not following the posting rules regarding the discussion of homosexuality.

To remind you all:

4.2 You will restrict any posts relating to the following controversial topics to the Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums (this site uses the scriptural definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman):
a. drug use.
b. gambling.
c. polygamy.
d. extramarital sexual activity.
e. abortion.
f. homosexuality.
g. transsexuality.

In addition, discussion of the above topics must be backed by evidence complete with citations. Standard citations are acceptable but links are preferred. The above topics are also disallowed in profile entries including avatars and signatures as these are not intended to be used in such a manner.

The thread will remain closed for now to allow staff time to review the content and so that each of you will have time to review the rules regarding this topic.

Thanks.

/MOD HAT