First gay couple legally married in Iowa - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Traveler · #76 (**permalink**) 09-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystal

Who gets married because they want to have kids? You don't actually have to be married or legally bound to someone to have a kid and raise it together. Unmarried people are having and raising kids everyday

For most people settling down, having a good job, a house and stability is something they have before they consider kids. Usually to do that with someone else (having a house and so on) requires a lot of love, dedication and support for one another. For that reason i would hope that people get married, because they wanna spend the rest of their lives with each other and then once they have the foundation, then have children who hopefully will have the best chance of a great quality life. That's the theory anyway. The kids usually come afterwards, when you have the best environment to have children, but before then you still have your own life with your partner/lover and the next natural step is marriage is it not after living with each other and sharing each other's lives? Just my views.

timj219 · #77 (**permalink**) 09-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

no but its in the debate....why change it? what real, purpose would it serve(?), gay friends I speak to, a clear majority agree that its a feeling of normalcy, and the benefits assigned to ‘marriage” that they seek..and most agree the feeling of normalcy is something thy have to attain on there won to an extent, and they also understand fully how people that don’t agree with gay marriage feel the drive to change it is some pushing action that regards benefits etc. are already out there and are proliferating down now in a trickle down affect...they also agree that there is an extremism among some of the more popular gay institutions and spokespersons who feel they must have it now, instead of allowing the trickle down tolerance that is sure to happen, add in the institutional educational introductions as well, people attain change through slow but steady application of logic....the harder you push the more dug in some will be.....regards benefits, I have zero issue with civil unions where n gay persons have a what is in effect a marriage contract tere by gaining the ability to make decision for each other, at work and recognition regard state and county agencies...and at the end, where their tolerance for us and our feelings and outlook....?

Labeling people homophobes because they don’t agree helps them not a wit and in fact is just another side of the old smear’em if you cannot convince them game....against illegal immigration ? You’re racist..thats hollow and a dishonest outlook regards the overall debate...

But nothing you've posted here offers an explanation for opposition to gay marriage other than homophobia. The "real purpose" that would be served by gay marriage is the granting of equal protection under the law to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. The fact that some of the benefits of marriage are now "trickling down" is not a rational argument against granting those rights explicitly and immediately. You think that "people attain change through slow but steady application of logic....the harder you push the more dug in some will be". That seems to imply that the resistance to gay marriage is not logical. I agree it is not logical and is in fact irrational. Homophobia. I'm not labeling people as a "game". I'm saying homophobia is the only explanation for opposition to gay marriage that I can find and I am inviting anyone to supply any rational explanation of the opposition they can think of. After a year of posting this way here I have yet to receive any such rational explanation.

Alex · #78 (**permalink**) 09-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

"PC" is exactly what you are promoting. There is nothing special about the term "marriage" that requires it be protected. The idea that all the rights of marriage should be granted to everyone is fine. But your insistence that the word itself be reserved for heterosexuals is the epitome of appearance being more important than substance. I really can't understand why anyone would spend time promoting such a meaningless gesture.

I am not promoting anything PC, far from it. By reserving the name 'marriage' for one man and one woman couples, society is making it clear that the homosexual unions are different. To pretend they are the same, IMHO at least, is the epitome of the type of politically correct bullshit I've come to despise.

timj219 · #79 (**permalink**) 09-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

I am not promoting anything PC, far from it. By reserving the name 'marriage' for one man and one woman couples, society is making it clear that the homosexual unions are different. To pretend they are the same, IMHO at least, is the epitome of the type of politically correct bullshit I've come to despise.

And yet you offer no explanation of why "society" should waste time on such a seemingly useless and meaningless gesture. If homosexuals are offered all the benefits of civil marriage then homosexuals unions are not in fact different from civil marriage in any way that matters.
Political correctness is the use of language to avoid giving offense to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. That is exactly what you are proposing. Making an otherwise meaningless semantic gesture to differentiate between "homosexual unions" and "marriage" to avoid offending people who don't like homosexual marriage.
So yes "PC" is exactly what you are promoting

Alex · #80 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

And yet you offer no explanation of why "society" should waste time on such a seemingly useless and meaningless gesture. If homosexuals are offered all the benefits of civil marriage then homosexuals unions are not in fact different from civil marriage in any way that matters.

Is it meaningless to differentiate two completely different acts from another? Clearly homosexual unions are substantially different than heterosexual unions. For one, they feature two people of the same sex!! That's what I call DIFFERENT. For that reason alone they should have their own name. For goodness sake, isn't that why we use language in the first place? Otherwise we'd all just grunt and point. Your 'name' would be GROK and so would everyone else's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

Political correctness is the use of language to avoid giving offense to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. That is exactly what you are proposing. Making an otherwise meaningless semantic gesture to differentiate between "homosexual unions" and "marriage" to avoid offending people who don't like homosexual marriage.

Semantic gesture? Do you call peaches, oranges? Of course not, but why don't you? They are both fruit aren't they? Yes, but they are different, very different. They share characteristics, but are by nature different. SO we give them different names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

So yes "PC" is exactly what you are promoting

Not even close. What you are proposing stinks of PC. The sole purpose of calling same sex unions a 'marriage' is so that we don't offend gays.

timj219 · #81 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Is it meaningless to differentiate two completely different acts from another? Clearly homosexual unions are substantially different than heterosexual unions. For one, they feature two people of the same sex!! That's what I call DIFFERENT. For that reason alone they should have their own name. For goodness sake, isn't that why we use language in the first place? Otherwise we'd all just grunt and point. Your 'name' would be GROK and so would everyone else's.
Semantic gesture? Do you call peaches, oranges? Of course not, but why don't you? They are both fruit aren't they? Yes, but they are different, very different. They share characteristics, but are by nature different. SO we give them different names.

The two institutions you propose are identical in their legal consequences. Civil marriage is a means of legally binding the participants and granting them rights in each others property and persons. As is homosexual union. So in their intent and in their impact they are identical. So yes your differentiation is meaningless except for those who have a problem with homosexual marriage.

Quote:

Not even close. What you are proposing stinks of PC. The sole purpose of calling same sex unions a 'marriage' is so that we don't offend gays.

Actually it's so some smarmy homophobe doesn't find a way to slip differences into law which will make homosexual unions inferior to marriage between heterosexuals.

You can cry about it all you like but you are clearly committing the very offense you pretend to despise. But becasue you are doing it to protect the sensibilities of right wing christian fundamentialists you think it's OK.

MattLarson · #82 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007

So basically, it seems that the vast majority support some equivalent legal status for homosexual couples that married heterosexual couples have, vis-a-vis taxes, inheritance, medical decision making, etc?

Then we're down to "that's our special word (marriage) and you can't use it"?

Kinda silly, IMHO.

Matt

FreeSpirit · #83 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007

I am surprised that the american talibans have let this happen.
I would think they would have blown the church before the wedding.

Congrats to the newly married! finally, a good liberal news from the USA.
I like it!

Free.

Alex · #84 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

You can cry about it all you like but you are clearly committing the very offense you pretend to despise. But becasue you are doing it to protect the sensibilities of right wing christian fundamentialists you think it's OK.

Sorry, but trying to drag religion into this discussion makes no sense. I've given you the reasons for my views on this topic and they have nothing to do with religion. Maybe you have me confused with someone else?

Crystal · #85 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

So basically, it seems that the vast majority support some equivalent legal status for homosexual couples that married heterosexual couples have, vis-a-vis taxes, inheritance, medical decision making, etc?

Then we're down to "that's our special word (marriage) and you can't use it"?

Kinda silly, IMHO.

Matt

You know, making statements like that could ruin your reputation around here

What are certain people going to do when they figure out you don't toe the GOP line?

Miranda · #86 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

So basically, it seems that the vast majority support some equivalent legal status for homosexual couples that married heterosexual couples have, vis-a-vis taxes, inheritance, medical decision making, etc?

Then we're down to "that's our special word (marriage) and you can't use it"?

Kinda silly, IMHO.

Matt

Perhaps it can be called "mawage"? As in... "Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday." ...from The Princess Bride?

O'Sullivan Bere · #87 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeSpirit

I am surprised that the american talibans have let this happen.
I would think they would have blown the church before the wedding.

Congrats to the newly married! finally, a good liberal news from the USA.
I like it!

Free.

Unlike Massachusetts and this recent wedding, gay marriage has never been allowed in the UK. It now allows 'civil partnerships' as of 2 years ago, not exactly a time immemorial legacy. Civil unions did exist in some American states before that time and it has been a social issue for quite awhile. The American social issue with it helped inspire gays elsewhere to press for these measures and spark conversation and debate on them, much the same way the UK and others follow American events and get clued onto experiments in American states like smoking bans, mobile phone driving bans, etc and wind up adopting them.

Traveler · #88 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007

Wasn't Ireland the first to implement a smoking ban?

But yeah you're right, basically everyone around the world watches each other to determine which way the wind is blowing at times.

Doesn't always work out that way as what is good for the geese isn't always good for the gander.

Look at Australia for example which recently toughened its immigration policy and required double the time spnt in the country (4 years rather than 2) to apply for citizenship. Pretty similar to ours now. All this as of course our immigration debate gets so intense.

O'Sullivan Bere · #89 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Wasn't Ireland the first to implement a smoking ban?

But yeah you're right, basically everyone around the world watches each other to determine which way the wind is blowing at times.

Doesn't always work out that way as what is good for the geese isn't always good for the gander.

Look at Australia for example which recently toughened its immigration policy and required double the time spnt in the country (4 years rather than 2) to apply for citizenship. Pretty similar to ours now. All this as of course our immigration debate gets so intense.

Ireland was the first nationwide ban and other European nations have adopted a smoking ban in full or in part as a result. However, the catalyst for the idea was New York City's ban. The Irish Minister for Health, always known as a fervent and uncompromising hater of smoking, observed the city's new smoking ban implemented by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and upon his return to Ireland he issued a directive implementing the nationwide ban. The NYC ban was the shot heard around the world, but it got its wheels going in California in the 1990s.

Traveler · #90 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007

I heard Alioto talking about it when she talked about impeaching Bush.

She said that San Fran came up with the idea first on it and the country would follow the same way that they were the first that banned public smoking; the commentator (i'm sure you can guess who

) corrected her on itand explained it started in Ireland.

The U.K. has now followed suit btw.

Out of interest who was mayor of NYC when they tried the bank first, Koch?

When it comes to domestic policy i think the way it works is our politicians look at other countries and see how they justify the laws in their own countries and they basically think of like for like ways to do the same.

Having said that when they try and influence our policy as far as international law goes they never get anywhere; however hard they try we'll never sign on board with Kyoto or the International Court system...must infuriate them. (I hope).

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode