Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 23, 2007 9:20:13 GMT -4
echnaton, I'd have to say that you are probably the closest to my own views on this, other than I think that it really is the wrong question being asked. I belive that the Gay Movement is so busy looking at wanting Marriage as their solution that they have missed the core of the situation which is that they want the same rights as if they were married. To methis should be the issue. I belive that all couples in a long term commited relationship should have the same rights regardless of if they have had a ceromony and signed a bit of paper. The fact that in many countries non-wed couples (or more if they happen to that way inclined) don't get the same rights as married couples just totally stinks to me. If people love each other and want to be commited to each other in a relationship, then they should get the protection of the law. Pure and simple. As marriage inherently confers the attendant rights and protections, it is the logical selected target. Unfortunately, nothing associated with the law is pure or simple: there are too many well-paid and ingenious people whose business is to make it otherwise ;D While the aim of equal protection for all relationships is admirable, some form of documentation is necessary: if only because rights entail responsibilities and in some circumstances a court will require evidence that all parties in the relationship were aware of the levels of commitment involved.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 23, 2007 12:08:31 GMT -4
I belive that the Gay Movement is so busy looking at wanting Marriage as their solution that they have missed the core of the situation which is that they want the same rights as if they were married. Which is one reason why I beleive it's about social acceptance, not rights. They are demanding that the term "marriage" and all the baggage that goes with it be expanded to cover their relationships, not just the rights associated with the term.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 23, 2007 13:43:50 GMT -4
I guess the church should have trade marked the term then...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 24, 2007 0:27:05 GMT -4
echnaton, I'd have to say that you are probably the closest to my own views on this, other than I think that it really is the wrong question being asked. I belive that the Gay Movement is so busy looking at wanting Marriage as their solution that they have missed the core of the situation which is that they want the same rights as if they were married. To methis should be the issue. I belive that all couples in a long term commited relationship should have the same rights regardless of if they have had a ceromony and signed a bit of paper. The fact that in many countries non-wed couples (or more if they happen to that way inclined) don't get the same rights as married couples just totally stinks to me. If people love each other and want to be commited to each other in a relationship, then they should get the protection of the law. Pure and simple. As marriage inherently confers the attendant rights and protections, it is the logical selected target. Unfortunately, nothing associated with the law is pure or simple: there are too many well-paid and ingenious people whose business is to make it otherwise ;D While the aim of equal protection for all relationships is admirable, some form of documentation is necessary: if only because rights entail responsibilities and in some circumstances a court will require evidence that all parties in the relationship were aware of the levels of commitment involved. I'll drop in our law once more, because it's quite good. Once a couple has been living togther for a period of two years, our law treats them as if they were married as far as property rights and such are concerned. Couples that would prefer to work out their own system of dealing with property and such if they split up have to actually opt out and form their own legal contract. If they don't have one, it is considered that they have accepted the law as a bidding contract and property is then divided 50/50 on any break-up. The only "right" they don't have is the Next of Kin, which they still don't have, and I personally believe that they should. As our statutes show, it is very possible to give the same protections to everyonem and it can be done simply, if there was a political will to do it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 24, 2007 3:50:35 GMT -4
To me, the Next of Kin is more important than the property rights. And again, speaking as someone who's been living with someone for more than two years, that system would be very bad for me. I'd lose my medical coverage. I'd rather have it be a system you opt into rather than one you opt out of. Hence marriage.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 24, 2007 12:11:09 GMT -4
I belive that the Gay Movement is so busy looking at wanting Marriage as their solution that they have missed the core of the situation which is that they want the same rights as if they were married. Which is one reason why I beleive it's about social acceptance, not rights. They are demanding that the term "marriage" and all the baggage that goes with it be expanded to cover their relationships, not just the rights associated with the term. Well, I'm not a homosexual, but I would certainly want more to be accepted by people than being allowed to get the same rights if I were gay. Getting equal rights after many years and still being looked down on is not something I would want.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 24, 2007 15:26:39 GMT -4
Wait a second. If liberals have the right to vote, shouldn't homosexuals have the right to marry.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 24, 2007 15:27:36 GMT -4
Wouldn't it, in theory, slow the spread of AIDS if homosexuals were allowed to marry?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 24, 2007 15:48:06 GMT -4
Wouldn't it, in theory, slow the spread of AIDS if homosexuals were allowed to marry? Since the majority of new cases are among heterosexuals and have been for a very long time, no.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 24, 2007 15:54:00 GMT -4
Wouldn't it, in theory, slow the spread of AIDS if homosexuals were allowed to marry? It would if you would make the assumptions that homosexuals are one of the biggest "groups" spreading AIDS, and having unsafe sex with a lot of people. Edited in the original quote
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 24, 2007 17:25:51 GMT -4
To me, the Next of Kin is more important than the property rights.
I totally agree which is why I'd rather have seen them bring in a legal next of kin rather then the Civil Union, it would have helped groups other than the Gay Movement and people that wanted to get Married but without the "religous" aspect.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 24, 2007 20:01:34 GMT -4
Would it shock everyone on the list if I said I think the next of kin rights should be extended to people in long-term relationships that are not a marriage, both homo and heterosexual?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 25, 2007 1:59:08 GMT -4
No. It would, however, shock me if you acknolwedged that the only basis for your arguments is religious.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 25, 2007 10:42:00 GMT -4
I acknowledged it was purely a religious/moral argument. Close enough?
EDIT: Or, to be more accurate, I acknowledged that I didn't have an argument that didn't have a religious/moral undertone.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 25, 2007 15:01:43 GMT -4
Will you acknowledge that your personal religious beliefs should have no influence on US law, that no religious beliefs should?
|
|