Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree. I was just thinking that YOU thought that YOU didn't treat ANY groups unequally. But you say you treat some groups unequally. And by your definition, so do I. So please stop bugging me to stop treating a certain group unequally, when you also treat a certain group unequally. Sound fair?

i'm not bugging you about treating a certain group unequally... that is within your right (and mine)... and it certainly doesn't make anyone a bad person

you said that "you resent the implication that they are not equal"... when, in fact, they are not equal

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the social impact is quite different in both categories...

INDEED THEY ARE

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

n our society if we decide a certain thing should not be the basis for any type of discrimination, be it skin color, sex, sexual practices, etc., we carry it across the board (at least in modern times)

Exactly, and we, society, has chosen NOT to merge these two different, separate life styles and place them under one common umbrella.

The two groups are allowed equal treatment under the law. Corporate America and Fed. entitlements can be changed to recognize Civil Unions for benefits and for estate planning. No need to blur the lines nor ignore the sanctity (sp?) of heteros marriage.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

The two groups are allowed equal treatment under the law. Corporate America and Fed. entitlements can be changed to recognize Civil Unions for benefits and for estate planning. No need to blur the lines nor ignore the sanctity (sp?) of heteros marriage.

but there is no sacred line where marriage is concerned... i go to a justice of the peace with my marriage certificate and get married... no god, no bible, no church

marriage and civil union are exactly the same thing in the eyes of the law... and in fact, a purely religious marriage without the corresponding legal marriage is not even recognized as valid

there is no line to blur... but you suggestion is creating a line where there need not be one... and whether intended or not, it says "these people are not equal, so must be categorized differently"

even if they share the exact same rights and principles

[Insidious Rex]

Exactly, and we, society, has chosen NOT to merge these two different, separate life styles and place them under one common umbrella.

The two groups are allowed equal treatment under the law. Corporate America and Fed. entitlements can be changed to recognize Civil Unions for benefits and for estate planning. No need to blur the lines nor ignore the sanctity (sp?) of heteros marriage.

And why dont we give them "equal" seperate schools while we are at it. And "equal" seperate skating rinks and swimming pools... Slippery slope... Welcome to the real world where people will discriminate if you make it a state sanctioned right.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And why dont we give them "equal" seperate schools while we are at it. And "equal" seperate skating rinks and swimming pools... Slippery slope... Welcome to the real world where people will discriminate if you make it a state sanctioned right.

Hey, what a great idea.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree. I was just thinking that YOU thought that YOU didn't treat ANY groups unequally. But you say you treat some groups unequally. And by your definition, so do I. So please stop bugging me to stop treating a certain group unequally, when you also treat a certain group unequally. Sound fair?

IIRC it was you who was protesting innocence of treating gays unequally. And I for one won't stop bugging you to stop treating them unequally because I think it's wrong. Especially when you (appear to) claim to be treating them equally.

The issue is, as you say, where we draw the line. But the argument of "well, we all draw a line somewhere, so we're all the same and each view is equally valid" is specious. Also, I suspect that ultra-relativism is not a worldview you genuinely subscribe to.

And it is like racial discrimination, in that gay people have no choice. Why the umbrage?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but there is no sacred line where marriage is concerned... i go to a justice of the peace with my marriage certificate and get married... no god, no bible, no church

ACTUALLY there is, Marriage is by definition origin a church connection and thereby sacred. If you have a marriage certificate you've been married in a church and are boy/girl....as even those judges who have tried to change things have had their rulings voided.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

marriage and civil union are exactly the same thing in the eyes of the law... and in fact, a purely religious marriage without the corresponding legal marriage is not even recognized as valid

You have to have a license to get married and that's a function of the law in each state so your last point is moot.
M&CU aren't exactly the same because benefits are involved and by contractual definition with corp. America CU suffer this problem.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

ACTUALLY there is, Marriage is by definition origin a church connection and thereby sacred. If you have a marriage certificate you've been married in a church and are boy/girl....as even those judges who have tried to change things have had their rulings voided.

not in the united states... marriage in my own state of massachusetts can be performed by:

Any ordained ministers or clergymen, and justices of the peace may perform weddings. Out-of-state clergy need to obtain a Certificate of Authorization from the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth before the wedding ceremony. A non-minister or non-justice of the peace (such as a relative of family friend) may receive from the Governor, for a $25 fee, special one-time permission to perform a marriage.

so i could even perform a legal marriage between two individuals for a $25 fee... and guess what? the couple will receive their very own "marriage certificate"

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Spock

ACTUALLY there is, Marriage is by definition origin a church connection and thereby sacred. If you have a marriage certificate you've been married in a church and are boy/girl....as even those judges who have tried to change things have had their rulings voided.
.

WRONG. You can get married at the Justice of the Peace, and have a completely non-religiously affiliated marriage certificate.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm not bugging you about treating a certain group unequally... that is within your right (and mine)... and it certainly doesn't make anyone a bad person

you said that "you resent the implication that they are not equal"... when, in fact, they are not equal

Then maybe I got your posts mixed up with some other person's. I thought you were telling me it was wrong to treat homosexuals unequally.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

there is no line to blur... but you suggestion is creating a line where there need not be one... and whether intended or not, it says "these people are not equal, so must be categorized differently"

even if they share the exact same rights and principles

Are you bugging Spock to treat homosexuals equally? Do you think it's wrong to say, ""these people are not equal, so must be categorized differently"? From your last post to me, it looks like you don't think that.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

IIRC it was you who was protesting innocence of treating gays unequally. And I for one won't stop bugging you to stop treating them unequally because I think it's wrong. Especially when you (appear to) claim to be treating them equally.

It looks like part of the issue between brownie and me was a definition one. By his definition, I am treating homosexuals unequally, but also, apparently that's OK with him, since he does it with other groups. This is my current understanding of what he's saying - please correct me if I"m wrong, brownie!

And from your post where you said, "I would also agree that incest should not be legal, and I would accept that this means I am not granting such people equality with others", it looks like you are also choosing to treat certain groups unequally, and that's OK with you. If so, then apparently you don't have a problem with treating certain groups unequally! Is that right? If that's your definition, too, then yes, I'm treating homosexuals unequally, but you're treating certain groups unequally, too, so what's the big deal?

The reason why I objected so strongly is that I thought you guys were saying I was doing something that you WEREN'T doing yourselves. But that's not the case, as I can see from your answers. (unless I'm misunderstanding you - am I?)

The issue is, as you say, where we draw the line. But the argument of "well, we all draw a line somewhere, so we're all the same and each view is equally valid" is specious.

I think it is, too. But from what I hear from you on this thread and others is that there is no absolute right, and there is no authority over humans. So I think if you're going to choose that bed, that you need to sleep in it, and I'm pointing out that you are NOT.

Also, I suspect that ultra-relativism is not a worldview you genuinely subscribe to.

No, I don't. But from what I can tell, you do - see above.

And it is like racial discrimination, in that gay people have no choice. Why the umbrage?

But a brother and sister who are attracted to each other have no choice either, by your description of our sexuality and how it works. Why deny them what you want to give to homosexuals?

(and by umbrage, do you mean I'm angry at homosexuals, or have been angry at people that want to change marriage laws and let them marry but not other groups like incestuous people?)

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

WRONG. You can get married at the Justice of the Peace, and have a completely non-religiously affiliated marriage certificate.

A JP still gives or requires a 'certificate of marriage' and that depends upon the current state laws.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

not in the united states... marriage in my own state of massachusetts can be performed by:

Yeah, Yeah, we know, Mass and Vt. and a few others have passed the laws or ignored the laws...so you're in the minority STILL.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so i could even perform a legal marriage between two individuals for a $25 fee... and guess what? the couple will receive their very own "marriage certificate"

So can a friend of mine but it's given within his church rules and not the states. Again SUN YUN MOON can marry same couples but that doesn't mean it's legal or correct or recognized in all states.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Are you bugging Spock to treat homosexuals equally? Do you think it's wrong to say, ""these people are not equal, so must be categorized differently"? From your last post to me, it looks like you don't think that.

spock is entitled to his own opinion, at the end of the day, the choice is his... as it should be

but when i see people claim that "i do treat them equally" and then "but marriage is different", i point out the hypocrisy

if you are against gay marriage, then you do not believe gays are entitled to the same things in our society that heterosexuals are... you believe they are not equal

it's not that complicated

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

So can a friend of mine but it's given within his church rules and not the states. Again SUN YUN MOON can marry same couples but that doesn't mean it's legal or correct or recognized in all states.

i do not believe that there is a single state in the US that requires any kind of religious participation in the act of marriage... correct me if i am wrong

religion and legal marriage are completely independent in the US

[Spock]

It is the word, the definition; marriage is between Robert and Susan not Stuart and Stanley IT'S not that difficult.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

It is the word, the definition; marriage is between Robert and Susan not Stuart and Stanley IT'S not that difficult.

definitions change... check out this article on the history of interracial marriage... forbidden in 40 states at one point in our history

[Spock]

..come on you just gotta bait and argue.....of course definitions change (but this one hasn't) if you ask for a "fag" in the US you'll get looks, but in the UK you won't. What can is different from what "is"......you remember the definition of what is is don't you.

[inked]

Hey, just ignore my TIME post, will ya! The silence (except for Nurv) is deafening!