Eggs said:
Nice quotes, I think it is an inadequate measure being that it could be misconstrued in so many ways. If you want something to register correctly then use the most accurate method describing it.
Thanks, I hope it wasnt the first time you heard it, wouldnt that shitty.
Yep, pretty much every lawsuit has been launched by these organizations. It is still just a part of the Christian grouping as a whole, and does an injustice to the rest who could care less if you like Billy or Bob. You're quick to jump on Christians, but I think that you're much better off with them trying to make a few marriage laws than anybody passing themself off as gay in the middle East. Perhaps I am incorrect, but I havent heard of too many gay activists over there. So while I am sure that it seems like you are severely persecuted, understand how much better you have it than them. Besides which, I have 3 roommates... none of them are Christian, and none of them think that homosexuality is "kosher".
sure
And this is where it gets tricky IMO. The manner in which you approach this is as a person that does not believe in God(at least any specific popular form of a religion), and obviously pro-homosexual. Thats your personal agenda... and you expect everyone that interacts with you to assume the same variables that you do to achieve your point of view. Thats not the way it goes though... because they are all different and assume different variables than you do. For you, homosexuality and the right to have a partner is a fundamental right. To them perhaps its not though. Constitutionally I dont believe that either group has the advantage, as at least as far as I know the Constitution does not say much about homosexuality. Of course Amendment IV speaks about privacy and right to ones property, but thats not just what is going on. As soon as one extends that knowledge outside the confines of their own home it is a public matter, and homosexuals are not dealing with the issue of what is going on in their own home, but of things they are seeking outside of it.
One cannot accurately describe this as trying to institute a religious policy either as there are objections that can arise outside of religion.
So what are rights that belong to us inherently as humans and US citizens? Is it within our rights to marry? Or to have children? I believe that while those things should be available, they should be regulated in certain situations. Lets say a child molester gets out of jail and finds a nice lady with a couple kids to marry. I dont personally believe that he should be allowed to do so. I know thats kinda messy, but thats how I believe. I believe rapists should be castrated, and so on.
While I can sympathize with you, and personally care less about homosexuality, I think you have no more right to push people to accept your beliefs on this matter than they do of you. Well, of course being that this is a democracy I believe that 51% of the population should decide the outcome of this. This land wasnt built on the necessity that eveything be nice, or fair... but that we vote to decide on what we believe is the right course for the nation.
Oh, and btw... a judge on the East coast recently ruled that a female guilty of killing her child (she's had 7 children) should either go through sterilization or be sent to jail. It might be overturned, but I hope not.
I really don't need any sympathy, as this situation doesn't personally affect me, at least at this time. However, the purpose of words in quotations is to reference the term used by the person or group which self-describes themselves as the only representatives of true "christian" faith. They've managed to successfully co-opt that recognition from both the media and the government and market themselves accordingly, sometimes with questionable practices.
While this land might not have been built on the notion that everything be nice or fair, it has also learned the painful lessons of denying reality at the expense of targeted citizens. And since the statutes involving next-of-kin were written leaving these people's relationships completely out of consideration, there are practical grievances that could have been addressed when they were first protested 30 years ago. If the demand of the state is that, in order to secure personal property rights and protect a family is based on statutory marriage, period. . .then they have every responsibility and right to seek inclusion in those important provisions.
While you believe that allowing marriage will suddenly turn their relationships into "public" ones, it isn't as if they would be allowed to suddenly have sex on the front lawn of the county courthouse. Since your roommates, who are apparently all straight, don't like gays, then they must be satisifed these relationships are already public. The pretense is in attempting to legislate their non-existence.
They hypocrisy is in the belief that this should be decided by...well, people like your roommates, who I'm sure don't believe strangers should vote on whether their choice of partner is acceptable. In fact, I doubt that either you or any of them would consider the opinions of outsiders as anything more than undue interference in their personal freedom to date and marry who they choose. Instituting laws that could later be interpreted as granting the state even greater rights to interfere with those personal choices could eventually lead these same "christian" organizations to your own door, citing whatever moral argument they wish to assert the public's right to make these decisions for you.
And while I sympathize about how you don't think certain heterosexuals should marry, the fact is they continue to be allowed access to all the benefits and responsibilities even when they've repeatedly shown an inability to uphold their own vows. And yes, criminals are not denied these privileges as well - just last year a former Boston priest who is still jailed as part of the catholic church's sexual abuse scandal was allowed to marry an ex-nun, even though they couldn't consummate the marriage. The courts have repeatedly upheld these, and other unions, as an inherent right of man that is a critical buffer between the power of the state and the individual. By advocating that others decide whether same-sex couples deserve protection of these statutes by majority vote, and basing this on the symbolic concern of having a public record that these people existed together is one of the issues. When there is no record present, bodies are exhumed from graves and moved, third-cousins can more easily challenge wills and funeral arrangements, and, up until the mid-1990's, newspapers could pretend they never loved anyone in their own obituaries. These are the things that civil marriage alone will cover, without negotiation.
As a nation, we can't exactly run around and talk about the importance of basic human rights when we systematically construct a system which categorically pretends a group of our own citizens can be denied the basic dignity of an accurate report of the most important aspects of their lives. Mere disapproval is not only a weak argument for popular vote, but one which will likely only serve to anger them more. I've known enough people to see the damages the lack of access to these protections has caused. . .
The "I'm not gay and I don't think I like gays" argument is about as important to gay Americans as the "Look at those amazing hooters and the ugly guys she is with". . .you can have the opinion, but you don't have the right to demand a public vote to decide if they should be denied marriage.
Should human progress be halted because we seem to slowly treat our own citizens better than some Middle Eastern nation? Absolutely not. But gay Americans are not as protected in the United States as their counterparts in most other Western nations.
Moreover, while I have met gay men who live in Afghanistan and in several Arab countries, their lives are very guarded - but then so are the lives of women who live there, too. Even Kuwait, which we fought to liberate, has never established a democratic government with universal suffrage.
Still, that is no excuse for our own nation to prevent a group of its own citizens from seeking redress for practical damages, or propose that heterosexuals decide whether homosexuals must continue pretending that they have lived 30 years with a "roommate" to satisfy someone else's insecurity. If the other side had evidence to indicate material damages. . .if they could show that ministers would be forced to recognize and perform ceremonies, that your roommates would suddenly be unable to fall in love with women, that neighborhoods would deteriorate, that cemetaries would be defaced if two women were buried next to each other. . .you get the picture. The majority just doesn't have any stake in "voting" on the issuance of a $15 license to access these benefits. What they should have done is pay some attention 30 years ago when gay Americans were having property stolen (sometimes by the state), wills regularly challenged, and partners often refused admittance to hospital rooms and funerals. Instead they turned their heads and pretended they didn't exist.
