dontamend.com

[epicstruggle]

Natoma I dont think you will ever get a majority of people in this country to extend marriages to include same sex couples. If somehow the courts give you this victory. It will only make those who already view the judicial system as broken to amend the constitution to include a definition of marriage to not include same sex couple.

I dont know how many time i can say this, but If there was a movement for civil unions ill support it. but if you want the easier way of getting courts to extend marriages to include same sex couple, then ill fight you and the courts. Sorry if this upsets you, thats just the way i think and feel.

btw when you say marriage i dont think govermnent, but a religious institution. Govermnent should really stay out of it, but they see many interests in making marriages work, for stability, security of children, taxes,.....

later,

 

[Natoma]

Natoma I dont think you will ever get a majority of people in this country to extend marriages to include same sex couples. If somehow the courts give you this victory. It will only make those who already view the judicial system as broken to amend the constitution to include a definition of marriage to not include same sex couple.

I dont know how many time i can say this, but If there was a movement for civil unions ill support it. but if you want the easier way of getting courts to extend marriages to include same sex couple, then ill fight you and the courts. Sorry if this upsets you, thats just the way i think and feel.

btw when you say marriage i dont think govermnent, but a religious institution. Govermnent should really stay out of it, but they see many interests in making marriages work, for stability, security of children, taxes,.....

later,

I understand that you feel that way now. However I'm sure 60 years ago it felt that way wrt equal civil rights for blacks and women. So I'll be the optimist on this one and give it time.

There are people btw who get married without a wedding ceremony, i.e. they go down to city hall and get married by a judge. So while I respect your belief that marriage is a religious institution, the fact remains that it is indeed an integral part of our governing body.

I agree that if people want marriage to be solely a religious institution, then all governmental rights and privileges should be revoked from marriage. For instance, you can be baptized as a christian and all christians will recognize that, but the government couldn't care less about it. You don't get special tax status for being baptized for instance, or visitation rights for being baptized. So in this case, if you wanted governmental rights and privileges for your relationship, you'd need to fill out forms and enter into a civil union to get those rights. Civil Unions would be open for homosexual and heterosexual couples. However marriage in and of itself would be left to the churches to give out.

So if one church recognizes homosexual marriages, then a religious gay couple in that church could get married there, but they'd still have to apply for civil union status to be recognized by the government. See what I'm saying?

However, if people want legal rights and protections conferred upon the state of marriage, then it becomes a government construct, with people themselves conferring upon it some religious meaning which has nothing to do with the government, but their own individual beliefs. So for instance, if you get married in the hindu tradition and Russ gets married in the christian tradition, the government doesn't see yours as a hindu marriage and Russ's as a christian marriage. It just sees you as married, plain and simple.

Religion and religious beliefs are separate from the governmental construct, and under that umbrella, as a citizen of this country who is in a relationship that the government no longer deems illegal, we should be able to enter into the legal construct of marriage. Those who wish to have their individual religion recognize their marriage, if they are indeed religious (which I am not), will need to take it up with their religion. But that would be a completely separate issue, not related to the governmental rights and protections and benefits associated with marriage.

I want it to be either way, not mixed. That is what would be fair imo.

 

[Tim Murray]

What percentage of the country is gay or lesbian? I think homosexuals and those who support gay rights are an extremely vocal minority, but a very small percentage of the population overall, whereas the black population was far more visible and far more present in everyday society than gays and lesbians are now in most of the country. After all, it's not exactly tricky to tell if someone is black or not (unless that person is Mariah Carey).

So, the whole racial comparison is pretty much baseless.

 

[epicstruggle]

baron, i think most studies show a maximum of 10% of the population is homosexual.

Natoma, I think having civil unions defined to include homosexual and heterosexual couples and polygamists is ok with me. I think many who get married really dont like the religious overtones. Having civil unions as an equavelint(sp?) alternative would make many heterosexuals happy too.

later,

 

[Natoma]

baron, i think most studies show a maximum of 10% of the population is homosexual.

Natoma, I think having civil unions defined to include homosexual and heterosexual couples and polygamists is ok with me. I think many who get married really dont like the religious overtones. Having civil unions as an equavelint(sp?) alternative would make many heterosexuals happy too.

later,

Well polygamy at this time would not be able to be included because it is an illegal relationship in this country. However, if it made legal, then yes it would be able to participate in a civil union, if civil union is the umbrella term for federally recognized relationships.

 

[Natoma]

What percentage of the country is gay or lesbian? I think homosexuals and those who support gay rights are an extremely vocal minority, but a very small percentage of the population overall, whereas the black population was far more visible and far more present in everyday society than gays and lesbians are now in most of the country. After all, it's not exactly tricky to tell if someone is black or not (unless that person is Mariah Carey).

So, the whole racial comparison is pretty much baseless.

Because of numbers or the ease of telling a gay person from a straight person?? That's got to be one of the absurd assertions I've read for not allowing gay marriages in this and other threads. And I've read some whoppers...

Fyi, the population of blacks in this country is roughly 13-15%. And when blacks were fighting for civil rights in the mid 20th century, the population percentage was in the single digits. The population of homosexuals (people predominantly aroused by people of the same sex) in this country is currently roughly 10%.

So I suppose blacks had no right to fight for their rights because they were such a small, but vocal, minority.

 

[Tim Murray]

Whoa, hold on. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that's a reason against it. I just said that comparing gay rights to black rights is problematic at best. In addition to the inherent inequality of segregation (which was first declared, IIRC, in Brown v. Board of Education), blacks were denied concrete rights which could be seen in daily life.

Benefits from marriage are benefits that are (in my opinion, erroneously) denied to homosexuals, but the vast majority of the population does not experience those rights on a regular basis. It doesn't have the visceral impact that institutionalized segregation had and has (go in the deep South, it's still around).

So, I think you're going to have a much harder time convincing the general populace to support marriage benefits for homosexuals than blacks did in the struggle for equal rights.

 

[Natoma]

The denial of marital rights are but a small snippet of the things homosexuals experience on the "down low" in every day society.

We can lose our homes and our jobs in many places in this country because of our sexuality and it is not illegal. The suicide rate for homosexual teens is 4-7 times higher than for heterosexual teens due to the burdens imposed by society. I should know. I came *this* close to committing suicide when I was 16 years old because I had a nervous breakdown because I could not deal with my sexuality and what it meant wrt my religion and society. I decided then and there that I was either going to kill myself and be done with it, or get up and fight for every right I am entitled to as a citizen of this country and as a human being.

There are schools specifically set up for homosexual teens in order to separate them from their regular school environment because of physical, emotional, and mental abuse doled out daily. Look up the Hetrick Martin Institute as one such example of schools setup for homosexual teens to escape the daily torture of their regular schools.

Marital rights are but a small portion of the rights and privileges as citizens of this country, nay, members of the human race, that we are denied on a grand scale and must fight for every day. If it were up to the right, we would be snuffed out and never rear our heads in public or in private. If it were up to the right, we would still be put in jail simply for engaging in sexual activity with one another.

Gay men and women are tortured and killed every day simply because of their sexual orientation. Matthew Shepard is but one of hundreds of victims every year who are beaten and killed simply because of their sexuality. Gay teens are afraid to come out to their families for fear of being kicked out on the street and/or abused. I should know. As a teen I lived that very palpable fear every day.

Just because you don't see it every day on the news doesn't mean it is any less insidious. Just because you can't look at someone and see their sexuality doesn't mean it's any less insidious. It does not mean that the societal discrimination is any less palpable.

 

[Tim Murray]

Being accepted by others is not a right. You cannot legislate it.

People aren't accepted because they're black, because they're white, because they're gay, because they're Hindu, because they're Christian, because they're Muslim, because they are missing a limb, because they're smarter than everyone else, because they're dumber than everyone else, because...

It's a part of life.

 

[Natoma]

Being accepted by others is not a right. You cannot legislate it.

People aren't accepted because they're black, because they're white, because they're gay, because they're Hindu, because they're Christian, because they're Muslim, because they are missing a limb, because they're smarter than everyone else, because they're dumber than everyone else, because...

It's a part of life.

You can certainly legislate to make the exact opposite of acceptance, i.e. discrimination, illegal.

 

[Tim Murray]

Being accepted by others is not a right. You cannot legislate it.

People aren't accepted because they're black, because they're white, because they're gay, because they're Hindu, because they're Christian, because they're Muslim, because they are missing a limb, because they're smarter than everyone else, because they're dumber than everyone else, because...

It's a part of life.

You can certainly legislate to make exact opposite of acceptance, i.e. discrimination, illegal.

And what you described was acceptance by society.

You can't make the religious right accept you for being homosexual any more than you could make... umm... the religious right accept you for being black.

 

[Natoma]

And what you described was acceptance by society.

You can't make the religious right accept you for being homosexual any more than you could make... umm... the religious right accept you for being black.

You can certainly make job, housing, marital, and school discrimination illegal. Forget the religious right. They'll find something to hate on anyways. 50 years ago it was black civil rights. Now it's gay rights. In 100 years it'll be AI rights. The religious right just gets off on hating. You're right. Can't change that.

But you can definitely marginalize them, as has been going on for decades.

 

[Tim Murray]

See, there's a fine line between equal rights and favoritism, and that's where I get nervous. I am strongly opposed to (most) affirmative action (in certain situations, it's helpful to a degree, but race or any other physical factor should never be a primary factor in deciding anything), and to prevent school discrimination, for example, you would have to create a federal law saying that kids couldn't call other kids gay or X, Y, or Z would happen.

Now what the hell. I went to a school where the most commonly used word by blacks and whites was "nigger," racial slurs were the norm, but while a kid could get in trouble for using them, it usually wasn't any worse than, say, "fuck." That's the way it should be. Someone who killed a guy for money doesn't mean the killer should get a more lenient sentence than the killer of a gay man. Yet that's exactly what the hate crime proponents want.

Bah. If kids are being intimidated or harassed at school, then why don't they deal with it? That's why the helpful staff people are there (and if they don't help you, well, God help them, because when you sue their asses the court system certainly won't).

 

[zurich]

For chrissake Natoma, with all your posting here, how do you find time for Eddie??

"Come to bed!!!"
"Hold on - One more rightwing cowboy yokel to go!!"

 

[Natoma]

For chrissake Natoma, with all your posting here, how do you find time for Eddie??

"Come to bed!!!"
"Hold on - One more rightwing cowboy yokel to go!!"

The funny thing is, that's how it happens sometimes.

See you guys? Even despite your hate filled ways and bigoted speech, I still love you and find time for you. Is that not what Christianity is all about?

 

[zurich]

For chrissake Natoma, with all your posting here, how do you find time for Eddie??

"Come to bed!!!"
"Hold on - One more rightwing cowboy yokel to go!!"

The funny thing is, that's how it happens sometimes.

See you guys? Even despite your hate filled ways and bigoted speech, I still love you and find time for you. Is that not what Christianity is all about?

Natoma - The Biggotyre Slayer

*cues the Nerf Herder music*

 

[epicstruggle]

The religious right just gets off on hating. You're right. Can't change that.

I hope your joking. Because it seems that your a hypocrate for not letting them fight for their beliefs if they go against yours.

later,

 

[Natoma]

Bah. If kids are being intimidated or harassed at school, then why don't they deal with it? That's why the helpful staff people are there (and if they don't help you, well, God help them, because when you sue their asses the court system certainly won't).

You can't be that blind......

 

[Natoma]

The religious right just gets off on hating. You're right. Can't change that.

I hope your joking. Because it seems that your a hypocrate for not letting them fight for their beliefs if they go against yours.

later,

I'm intolerant of intolerance epicstruggle. That may sound like a double standard, but I assure you it is not.

 

[Sabastian]

The religious right just gets off on hating. You're right. Can't change that.

I hope your joking. Because it seems that your a hypocrate for not letting them fight for their beliefs if they go against yours.

later,

I'm intolerant of intolerance epicstruggle. That may sound like a double standard, but I assure you it is not.

Well I am intolerant of your intolerance of free speech. You don't have to be a Christian to dislike a certain political agenda.