Originally posted by Ushgarak
"Most homosexual couples don't want to fight for marriage, they want to fight for rights. And that's fine, they should be able to get those rights through civil unions"Not directly in the post you were referring to wso I can see how you missed it but it was there at the point you made your post.
My bad, didn't realize she had corrected herself afterwards.
Attention: Sabrea
Originally posted by Adam_PoEYou do not hate gay people, you do not want for gay people to be unhappy, and you do not want to devalue gay people, but you do not think that the relationships of gay people should be considered equal to the relationships of straight people.
Civil unions and domestic partnerships only provide 350 of the 1,400 benefits and protections of marriage, and are not recognized from state-to-state, or by the federal government. Why should gay couples settle for a quarter when straight couples get a whole pie?
If you would like to discuss the nature of homosexuality, there is a 271 page thread devoted to the subject.
You will note that there is no conclusive evidence as to the cause of heterosexuality, yet this has never been cited as a sufficient reason to teach adolescents that heterosexuality is abnormal or to deny opposite-sex couples the right to marry. Why should homosexuality be held to a different standard?
Especially considering that the immutability of sexual orientation is irrelevant to whether or not same-sex couples, and the over one million children in the United States who are being raised by same-sex couples, deserve equal protection under the law as guaranteed to every American by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Adam_PoEThe approximately 1,138 benefits and rights afforded to married couples. This includes, but is not limited to:
[list][*]Hospital Visitation–Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.
[*]Social Security Benefits–Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits, resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
[*]Health Insurance–Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
[*]Estate Taxes–A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
[*]Retirement Savings–While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401K funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401K can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.
[*]Family Leave–Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.
[*]Immigration Rights–Bi-national families are commonly broken up or forced to leave the country to stay together. The reason: U.S. immigration law does not permit American citizens to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.
[*]Nursing Homes–Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.
[*]Home Protection–Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
[*]Pensions–After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.[/list]
Gay partnerships are on their way to be recognised in Victoria! Our State Government is going to have a register in which gay couples can register their relationship, and this will give them the same entitlements as heterosexuals. It looks like this will go ahead dispite expected protests from church groups and homophobes etc.
Gays still can't marry, but this is certainly a step in the right direction. 🙂
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sabrea not having said that gay people should not be considered equal, and also agreeing with you that they should have the same rights, I am not sure how helpful that was.How important is the actual word 'marriage' in all this, is the thing.
You should ask yourself, why someone would be against it in the first place; the reasoning behind it, the motive. It's not like if Adam (or other) were to marry another man, it would somehow affect her life and/or her marriage (if she is/were to be). There lies the answer to the truth, most likely.
Edit: I should add, I have heard before from people against gay marriage say, "I have nothing against gays", "I have gays friends myself", "Gays are nice people", etc. etc. etc. yet they're still against granting rights to people who's 'granted rights' wouldn't interfere in any way with their own lives.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sabrea not having said that gay people should not be considered equal, and also agreeing with you that they should have the same rights, I am not sure how helpful that was.How important is the actual word 'marriage' in all this, is the thing.
Here she states that same-sex couples should accept second-class citizenship:
Originally posted by Sabrea
Instead of attacking heterosexual couples, they should realize this and accept the civil unions they are given. By trying to change the laws, they are also indirectly trying to redefine what marriage is and always has been.
Here she states that same-sex couples do not desire, let alone deserve equal rights:
Originally posted by Sabrea
And honestly, I know more straight people than gay people that are fighting for these rights. Most of the people fighting for gay rights are straight people who think they're doing a good deed by helping the gays. But on the other hand, most gays I know are absolutely fine with just civil unions and couldn't really care any less if they're permitted the right to marriage or not.So don't think I'm just bashing gay rights, technically all movements to give rights have been out of place and shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Here she states that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry that the institution of marriage would become meaningless, and compares homosexuality to polygamy:
Originally posted by Sabrea
As far as "does it really matter", it does. Most homosexual couples don't want to fight for marriage, they want to fight for rights. And that's fine, they should be able to get those rights through civil unions. When things change the meanings behind them are lost. Just because the gay community thinks we should change the laws, doesn't mean we should. Would you argue for polygamists that they have the right to marry whoever they want?
Did I miss something?
Well, Adam, you are basically just out and out lying there (or possibly mistaken due to a desire to make things out to be worse than they are) because in all cases her point was not that they should be denied the same rights as heterosexuals, which she specifies they should have, but access to the term 'marriage', which is something I have actually taken her to task on.
The comparison to polygamy was not helpful but that doesn't change the fact that basically, yes, you missed the most important thing. This argument is about nomenclature, NOT rights.
You can speculate about that all you like, Robtard, but it's pretty irrelevant what her motivations are, frankly.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can speculate about that all you like, Robtard, but it's pretty irrelevant what her motivations are, frankly.
If motives are irrelevant now, then there is absolutely no logical reason why two men or two women should be restricted from using the word marriage in a ceremony.
Also, it's up the the motiveless "no gay-marriage" crowd to prove that some negative would be the outcome, of allowing such action.
Well I didn;t want the thread too de-railed either, no. Regardless of her views in that area- which are the province of a different thread- the fact is, pertinent to this thread, that sabrea has said that she thinks gays should have the same rights by union as heterosexuals have via marriage.
As this is a situation which does not yet exist, then I do not care what her motivations her- on that particular point that they deserve rights we can be agreed.
Now she thinks they should not be allowed the term 'marriage' and I think they should. That was the issue being debated.
Trying to make out that the issue is actually that sabrea thinks they should have fewer rights is simply inaccurate and distracting, as is trying to read any more into her statements than need be.
Originally posted by Robtard
If motives are irrelevant now, then there is absolutely no logical reason why two men or two women should be restricted from using the word marriage in a ceremony.
It's not motives that are important to that, but her reasoning. Which is better grounds for debate.
I still think the term has greater importance to there being a true equality than merely the rights it does or does not confer.
Though better to not have the term and have the rights than the other way around, of course.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, Adam, you are basically just out and out lying there (or possibly mistaken due to a desire to make things out to be worse than they are) because in all cases her point was not that they should be denied the same rights as heterosexuals, which she specifies they should have, but access to the term 'marriage', which is something I have actually taken her to task on.The comparison to polygamy was not helpful but that doesn't change the fact that basically, yes, you missed the most important thing. This argument is about nomenclature, NOT rights.
You can speculate about that all you like, Robtard, but it's pretty irrelevant what her motivations are, frankly.
Who is lying?
Did she or did she not state that same-sex couples should "accept the civil unions they are given"?
Did she or did she not state that same-sex couples "couldn't really care any less if they're permitted the right to marriage or not"?
Did she or did she not state that all civil rights movements "shouldn't have happened in the first place"?
Did she or did she not state with regard to expanding marriage to include same-sex couples, "When things change the meanings behind them are lost"?
Did she or did she not state with regard to expanding marriage to include same-sex couples, "Would you argue for polygamists that they have the right to marry whoever they want?"
It is clear what her point is, and it is not equality.
Well, that's just you reading far too much into things, Adam. Sabrea has specified that she thinks they should have equal rights in the form of Unions, and so in saying they should accept Unions she is saying they should accept equal rights, just not the name 'marriage' (and though her wording at the time implied they should accept the unequal Unions they have now, that was later clearly corrected to her supporting the idea that they should fight for equal rights). Incidentally, it may well be true that there are many gays who do not care if it is called 'marriage' or not, though in the end that's not amazingly relevant.
Yes she did say that about civil rights movements, but that's totally irrelevant to the debate at hand consideirng what she said about supporting them looking for equal rights, as I say.
And your last two comments are simply reflecting back to this conversation/debate about the term 'marriage' which is precisely at the heart of things, and once more is nothing to do with a stance on equal rights (even though I would argue it may be relevant to a broader notion of equality)
So let's stop with this distraction and get on with that argument. How important is the term 'marriage' to the whole thing?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, that's just you reading far too much into things, Adam. Sabrea has specified that she thinks they should have equal rights in the form of Unions, and so in saying they should accept Unions she is saying they should accept equal rights, just not the name 'marriage' (and though her wording at the time implied they should accept the unequal Unions they have now, that was later clearly corrected to her supporting the idea that they should fight for equal rights)Yes she did say that about civil rights movements, but that's totally irrelevant to the debate at hand consideirng what she said about supporting them looking for equal rights, as I say.
And your last two comments are simply reflecting back to this conversation/debate about the term 'marriage' which is precisely at the heart of things, and once more is nothing to do with a stance on equal rights (even though I would argue it may be relevant to a broader notion of equality)
So let's stop with this distraction and get on with that argument. How important is the term 'marriage' to the whole thing?
I am not inferring a meaning that her statements do not denote. There is no figurative way to interpret a comparison of homosexuality to polygamy; and she either believes as she states the institution of marriage would become meaningless if same-sex couples are allowed to marry or she does not.
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brown v. The Board of Education that all Americans are guaranteed equal access to the same institutions by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In short, "separate but equal" institutions—in this case, marriage for opposite couples, and civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples—is unconstitutional.
She was not comparing it directly to polygamy, she was trying to make a point about how the definition of marriage should not change because some people want it to. I agree it is a faulty point but it is not a direct comparison.
And yes, she thinks that about marriage. That is why we are arguing about the importance of the term 'marriage'... as OPPOSED to talking about equal rights which I will again repeat she has specified she wants. She doesn't think it will become meaningless because of any rights involved.
If you want to debate the constitutionality of it all then fine, but there are many who would completely disagree with you and that view does not currently appear to be that of the US judiciary.
I still think the article illustrates a very good point...it is extreneky bigotted to support Civil Unions as they are now, for one cause there's no rational arguments for it. It is unequal. Now, whether gays should be allowed to marry or straights should only be allowed to have civil unions is arguable. Fact is marriage is a very strong term in our societies and since that is the case it just furthers ignorance and homophobia, by explaining that once again straights get the better treatment. Even if all the rights of civil unions were the same as of marriage, it would still not be equal or be seen as the same. I can see how people like the word marriage a lot and don't want it applied to basically the same thing that they disagree with...I don't want Jews to have the right to "marry"...but do I use the government to support that view? No, cause the government has to be unbiased about certain things, and it just is not in our society.
Though I might add, of course it is not factually gay rights as such one is arguing for, but just rights of everyone.
Originally posted by UshgarakI agree.
Well, I more or less agree.But I do think battles should be fought one stage at a time. Get the rights first, then time will show the absurdity of distinguishing the name.
First step getting those additional "gay" rights
Second calling it the same thing
Third abolishing the whole bullshit.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
So let's stop with this distraction and get on with that argument. How important is the term 'marriage' to the whole thing?
Considering that we're talking about gay rights, and the term "marriage" defines the rights granted, it's very important.
Seriously, if the term "marriage" were the only issue with the "no gay-marriage crowd", then when "civil unions" were made legal and recognized, they would have been written exactly the same (rights wise) as marriage.
Problem is "marriage" and "civil unions" are both separate and not equal; it was done intentionally.