11-07-2008, 10:25 AM | #51 | |||
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
My point was asking if anyone in this thread was going to enter a gay marriage, but will be kept from doing so in California by this vote. Of course, you don't have to be gay to have an interest. I'm making the assumption that everyone in this discussion is smart enough to figure that out, but maybe I'm making a mistake in that assumption. |
|||
11-07-2008, 10:27 AM | #52 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
|
11-07-2008, 10:33 AM | #53 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
Doesn't the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 do this already? |
|
11-07-2008, 10:37 AM | #54 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
Well, ignorance is what brought this issue to the forefront, so why not keep it going in the thread. I was the one that first posted the hypocracy of the black vote on this board in the presidential election thread. Any assumption that you have to be gay to be involved in a human rights discussion is ignorance at its finest. Last edited by Mizzou B-ball fan : 11-07-2008 at 10:37 AM. |
|
11-07-2008, 10:38 AM | #55 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
I really don't know. If it does, then I would argue that they are trying to undermine religion to a certain extent. If a civil union gives them all the rights that a married couple has, why do they need to have a marriage? |
|
11-07-2008, 10:40 AM | #56 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
Quote:
Separate but equal? Or are you saying that all references to marriage in our law would change to civil union as well? If you're saying the latter, I am on board. |
|
11-07-2008, 10:42 AM | #57 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
Quote:
Maybe because a marriage certificate can protect those rights when an accident may happen in another state, where the protections granted by this "civil union" type arrangement has no equivalent. That is speculation on my part. |
|
11-07-2008, 10:45 AM | #58 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
in point of fact this is my position too, but i also don't believe that just because that legislation has yet to be passed that we have the right to discriminate against them until that point. if that legislation isn't going to be proposed then i'm going to vote in favor of whatever other legislation i can to protect their civil rights. giving them the right to be "married' maybe isn't the BEST solution, but it is the solution that is presenting itself AT THIS MOMENT, and just because it is not perfect does not mean that they should be discriminated against until somebody gets the best solution enacted into law.
__________________
If I've ever helped you and you'd like to buy me a coffee, or just to say thanks, I have my Bitcoin and Ethereum addressed listed below :) BTC: bc1qykhsfyn9vw4ntqfgr0svj4n9tjdgufryh2pxn5 ETH: 0x2AcdC5cd88EA537063553F5b240073bE067BaCa9 |
|
11-07-2008, 10:46 AM | #59 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: An Oregonian deep in the heart of Texas.
|
Quote:
Separate but equal is inherently unequal. The only reason to find a different name for gay marriage, such as civil union, is to communicate it’s inferiority to straight marriage. Edit: Tekneek made the point before I could submit Last edited by I. J. Reilly : 11-07-2008 at 10:48 AM. |
|
11-07-2008, 10:47 AM | #60 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
only for the state of california though. as i pointed out in the Prop 8 thread, what if you're on vacation in nevada and your domestic partner gets hit by a bus and put into a coma and can't be moved from nevada - you don't have the right to "pull the plug" even if that would be his wish. (that's just one example)
__________________
If I've ever helped you and you'd like to buy me a coffee, or just to say thanks, I have my Bitcoin and Ethereum addressed listed below :) BTC: bc1qykhsfyn9vw4ntqfgr0svj4n9tjdgufryh2pxn5 ETH: 0x2AcdC5cd88EA537063553F5b240073bE067BaCa9 |
|
11-07-2008, 10:48 AM | #61 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
|
11-07-2008, 10:51 AM | #62 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Quote:
Power of Attorney and Medical Power of Attorney (I think the latter is the correct term) aren't state-specific, are they? If you don't have those papers, you may or may not have that right if you're married or not, barring the law in that state allowing for "closest living relative" which marriage may make you. If I wanted to, I could assign those rights to anyone on this board with the correct paperwork without involving a discussion of marriage. Marriage just sets up some defaults.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
|
11-07-2008, 10:52 AM | #63 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Backwoods, SC
|
I didnt read every reply, because some of it went down tangets I dont really care to discuss.
But what restrictions are placed on marriage? Because if there are none (as some suggest) what keeps "room mates" from filing taxes as married, or other such loopholes. |
11-07-2008, 10:54 AM | #64 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
|
11-07-2008, 10:55 AM | #65 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
+1 I got very heated in my discussion with my parents over this last night too (my parents who are pretty damn liberal). I've declared a zero-tolerance policy for this issue in my life, extending so far as our family-friend the Jesuit priest (although I hope for his sake he doesn't engage me in discussion about it - i don't want to yell at an 80 year old guy).
__________________
If I've ever helped you and you'd like to buy me a coffee, or just to say thanks, I have my Bitcoin and Ethereum addressed listed below :) BTC: bc1qykhsfyn9vw4ntqfgr0svj4n9tjdgufryh2pxn5 ETH: 0x2AcdC5cd88EA537063553F5b240073bE067BaCa9 |
|
11-07-2008, 10:57 AM | #66 |
Torchbearer
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: On Lake Harriet
|
|
11-07-2008, 10:58 AM | #67 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
I think gays have the right to be married and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be removed from their ignorance pulpit. I was just trying to find out if anyone in the thread was actually gay to get a further take on the issue and was making no statement that you had to be gay to understand the issue. I thought the statement where Jon had to clarify in another thread that the use of the word 'good' and 'Fred Phelps' was sarcastic in nature was funny at first. I now know why he did that. There's a lot of people on this board that will take an assumption and run like the wind with that assumption rather than asking about the context of the statement. |
|
11-07-2008, 10:59 AM | #68 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
|
Quote:
I think the biggest deterrent from 'marrying' your roommate for tax purposes would be the legal costs involved in both filing for the marriage and then the divorce? I don't know, but it seems like that sort of fraud could be dealt with pretty easily if legislators wanted/need to.
__________________
"Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime." |
|
11-07-2008, 10:59 AM | #69 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
There are likely plenty of other examples - I'm sure one could google for them and find a ton, but I have yet to do that (although maybe I should).
__________________
If I've ever helped you and you'd like to buy me a coffee, or just to say thanks, I have my Bitcoin and Ethereum addressed listed below :) BTC: bc1qykhsfyn9vw4ntqfgr0svj4n9tjdgufryh2pxn5 ETH: 0x2AcdC5cd88EA537063553F5b240073bE067BaCa9 |
|
11-07-2008, 10:59 AM | #70 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
|
11-07-2008, 11:00 AM | #71 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
yay for you! common ground!
__________________
If I've ever helped you and you'd like to buy me a coffee, or just to say thanks, I have my Bitcoin and Ethereum addressed listed below :) BTC: bc1qykhsfyn9vw4ntqfgr0svj4n9tjdgufryh2pxn5 ETH: 0x2AcdC5cd88EA537063553F5b240073bE067BaCa9 |
|
11-07-2008, 11:02 AM | #72 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
Quote:
The marriage may be cheap, but the divorce will be more expensive. Just the filing fees alone cost more than the marriage license in most places, right? |
|
11-07-2008, 11:02 AM | #73 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
|
Quote:
There are also a lot of people who have gone past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to borderline crazy comments. I'm guessing Quiksand or someone else less controversial might get a little more leeway than you (or perhaps even myself, assuming I have a reputation beyond 'the guy with the name like oral sex').
__________________
"Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime." |
|
11-07-2008, 11:03 AM | #74 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
gstelmack - just for starters a quick google found this
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2008, 11:08 AM | #75 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
Why the need for the divorce? Male/female roommates could 'get married' and live together for 5+ years and get all the benefits. When they go their separate ways, you can file for divorce for as little as a couple hundred dollars if there are no strings attached. The financial benefit would far outweigh the small cost of 'divorce'. Point being, the argument about 'roommates' doesn't hold much water when male/female already can expose that loophole right now without issue. |
|
11-07-2008, 11:08 AM | #76 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In the thick of it.
|
I heard about this on the radio on the way to work today.
Quote:
__________________
I'm still here. Don't touch my fucking bacon. Last edited by Sun Tzu : 11-07-2008 at 11:09 AM. |
|
11-07-2008, 11:09 AM | #77 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
I'm a fan of oral sex, so you will receive full leeway from me. |
|
11-07-2008, 11:12 AM | #78 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Some good points.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
11-07-2008, 11:14 AM | #79 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
The ability of estranged parents to prevent a domestic partner from visiting the bedside of an incapacitated partner is particularly egregious, I've always felt.
|
11-07-2008, 11:15 AM | #80 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
|
Agreed, and actually a good reason why marrying your roommate for tax purposes might not be such a great idea. Saving a few hundred bucks in taxes each year might not be so great if your roomie dies and you're stuck with all his debt.
__________________
"Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime." |
11-07-2008, 11:17 AM | #81 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
|
Quote:
More egregious than the ability is the desire to do so. I can't imagine treating the partner of my child that way, regardless of my feelings about their relationship.
__________________
"Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime." |
|
11-07-2008, 11:18 AM | #82 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC
|
Quote:
You have it all wrong. The incorrect assumption you have is that we think you're smart enough to figure that out.
__________________
Sixteen Colors ANSI/ASCII Art Archive "...the better half of the Moores..." -cthomer5000 |
|
11-07-2008, 11:21 AM | #83 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
lil piece from a CNN article that was talking about the Latinos in CA heavily voting YES on Prop 8.
The examples he gives of taking away rights are things that have happened to Latinos. Quote:
Last edited by DaddyTorgo : 11-07-2008 at 11:25 AM. |
|
11-07-2008, 11:36 AM | #84 |
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Florida
|
Gay unions can never be equal to heterosexual unions for one reason, procreation - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about hetero couples who aren't able to conceive.
I wouldn't oppose civil legal protections for same-sex partners, but to try and make the argument that it is in every way equal to the traditional union between a man and woman is ludicrous. |
11-07-2008, 11:38 AM | #85 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
Quote:
We are talking about under the laws of this nation, not the laws of nature. |
|
11-07-2008, 11:40 AM | #86 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
|
11-07-2008, 11:41 AM | #87 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
|
11-07-2008, 11:47 AM | #88 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: sans pants
|
Quote:
Besides, married gay couples can just as easily use artificial insemination or surrogates when the time comes to have children. Just like countless thousands of married hetero couples do.
__________________
Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!! I do shit, I take pictures, I write about it: chrisshue.com |
|
11-07-2008, 11:48 AM | #89 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
|
11-07-2008, 11:54 AM | #90 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Florida
|
Quote:
Even using AI, a third party sperm or egg must be used, and in the case of males, a surrogate must be found to carry the child to term. |
|
11-07-2008, 11:57 AM | #91 |
Norm!!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manassas, VA
|
Please explain what procreation has to do with marriage.
|
11-07-2008, 12:00 PM | #92 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In the thick of it.
|
I can't believe someone here actually believes the entire purpose of marriage is to procreate. By that logic, then nobody who has intentions of having children should by law be allowed to marry. That's absolutely rediculous...in that case I feel sorry for your children, because they probably have to listen to that grovel and may actually believe it.
__________________
I'm still here. Don't touch my fucking bacon. |
11-07-2008, 12:01 PM | #93 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
|
11-07-2008, 12:04 PM | #94 | ||
Hockey Boy
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
Quote:
And why is that argument bullshit? Because it totally disproves your statement? My wife and I are married, but probably aren't going to have kids. Does that mean our marriage is some how less equal than a "fruitful" marriage? Quote:
Here's an interesting piece on this notion of "the 'traditional' union". Marriage's lineage a bit convoluted To opponents of same-sex marriage, it seems so simple. Let's just preserve marriage the way it has always been. "OK,'' says feminist biblical scholar Mary Ann Tolbert. "What is that?'' The fact is from issues of divorce, race, religion and the role and rights of the partners, the concept of marriage has always been in play. And it continues to be today, including in this country. Many would be surprised to know that as recently as 1967 in many states it was illegal for a mixed race couple to be granted a marriage license. An even bigger surprise, given current debate over same sex marriages, is that when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of interracial marriage, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the "freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides in that individual.'' Note that Warren wrote "person,'' and refers to "persons'' -- not man or woman -- throughout the opinion. So, when President Bush said yesterday that the country needed a constitutional amendment to beat back attempts to redefine marriage in this country, at least some legal experts suggested he was far too late. The institution of marriage has changed and morphed constantly through the years, and almost always to a hue and cry from those who worry about the structure of traditional marriage. As the Massachusetts Supreme Court said in last year's ruling to allow same-sex marriage in that state, "alarms about the erosion of the 'natural order of marriage' were sounded over the demise of anti-miscegenation (mixed race marriage) laws, the expansion of rights of married women and the introduction of no-fault divorce.'' Or perhaps you would be safer going with the strict biblical definition. That gets a little tricky too. "It is really much more complex in religious perspective than you might think,'' says Tolbert, the George Atkinson Professor for Biblical Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. "What the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife's slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.'' Tolbert, who is also the executive director for the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry, points out that marriage didn't even become a sacrament of the church "until the 12th century. For the first 1,200 years (A.D.) in Europe there were civil unions by town or village government.'' Nor does the New Testament offer much help. In fact, by some selective readings it sounds as if the Bible has mixed views of marriage. As Tolbert says, Jesus says very little about marriage, and both he and Paul were single men. And Paul, at least, recommended chastity. "Marriage is not a sin,'' says Paul in First Corinthians, "but it is better to be unmarried.'' "The Bible is an incredibly important sacred icon in our culture,'' says Tolbert. "But I just think a lot of people don't read it.'' Although same-sex marriage will be the subject of sermons and a source of debate in churches, the real battle as the president has framed it will be in the courts. His point, he says, is that "local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.'' If so, it won't be the first time. The roles of the people in a civil union have changed dramatically over history, including the recent history of the United States. It begins in the 1700s and 1800s, when married woman actually lost many of their legal rights when they agreed to get married. After marriage, they were not allowed to own property, pay taxes or sign a contract. Any money women earned outside the home was to be turned over to their husbands. "You go back to the early years of this country,'' says Joan Hollinger, a professor at Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley specializing in child welfare and family law, "and you find that the wife became a kind of possession of the husband." It was not until the latter half of the 19th century, she said, that married women reacquired the rights they had when they were single. As recently as 1920, the states of Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and New Mexico hadn't changed their laws. A far greater change in marriage law came in 1948, when California was the first state to make it legal for a couple of mixed race to be married. It took another 19 years for the U.S. Supreme Court to make the same ruling. So until 1967, in many states, a couple of mixed race could not get a marriage license, and if they went to another state and were married, when they returned home they could be arrested. "When I tell my students that was in 1967,'' said Hollinger, "they sort of gasp.'' And if you think the commotion over at City Hall is something, Hollinger says you should have been in the South when attempts were being made to overturn the anti-miscegenation laws. "I hear Gov. Schwarzenegger talking about riots,'' she says. "I was in Mississippi in 1964. Compared to that, this is a lovefest.''
__________________
Steve Yzerman: 1,755 points in 1,514 regular season games. 185 points in 196 postseason games. A First-Team All-Star, Conn Smythe Trophy winner, Selke Trophy winner, Masterton Trophy winner, member of the Hockey Hall of Fame, Olympic gold medallist, and a three-time Stanley Cup Champion. Longest serving captain of one team in the history of the NHL (19 seasons). |
||
11-07-2008, 12:05 PM | #95 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mass.
|
Quote:
To be fair, I actually decided to try to research what the origin of "marriage" was once all of these conversations came up. (since as I mentioned several times my suggestion for how I thought the government should get out of the "marriage' business all together and have civil unions for everyone. Then leaving marriages for people to do however they wanted - within a church, in front of an elvis presley impersonator, in a wiccan celebration or whatnot)... Anyhows, there did seem to be some references to marriage early on in the Old Testament of the Bible, but the earliest references to "marriage" that I could find in my limited chance to do research had to do with a man purchasing a woman (or women) for the purpose of procreating and creating offspring. It evidently was more a legal contract than anything to do with love. Of course those same laws or "codes" also supported multiple wives, slavery and to some extent treated a wife like a slave in some sense as marriage was the ownership of the wife.. So not sure that any of these are good examples to base modern civilization or culture upon Anyways.. figured I would just throw all of this out there just to feel smart, or sound smart, or whatever.. not that it really has much of any impact on this conversation! |
|
11-07-2008, 12:20 PM | #96 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
No, this is not separate but equal at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government recognizes as two people uniting into a single household. A civil union does the same thing, or should do the same thing. |
|
11-07-2008, 12:21 PM | #97 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
Quote:
I wonder how many that voted yes on prop 8 were just ignorant of the history of marriage and civil rights issues in this nation, rather than outright bigots. Reminds me of how Palin thought the "Founding Fathers" wrote the Pledge of Allegiance (nevermind adding "God" to it!). |
|
11-07-2008, 12:21 PM | #98 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC
|
My wife read this book and it has a lot information about how "marriage" has changed throughout the centuries.
Amazon.com: Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage: Stephanie Coontz: Books
__________________
Sixteen Colors ANSI/ASCII Art Archive "...the better half of the Moores..." -cthomer5000 |
11-07-2008, 12:22 PM | #99 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
Quote:
That is the very definition of separate but equal. If a marriage is purely religious, how does the government have anything to do with it? |
|
11-07-2008, 12:24 PM | #100 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Joey Harrington is a Hall of Fame quarterback - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about all his interceptions and inaccuracy. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|