US set to abstain from UN vote

[Fred]

I usually dont get into these arguments, b/c I don't really care too much about 'gay rights'. In principle all for it, in practise the rhetoric is irratating.

Who cares about the Christian slant frankly. They're wrong about nearly every other big issue. There is plenty of reasonable people in the world that you need not concern yourself with a few zealots, who won't be altered no matter what. Their logic is intact, its from scripture.. Thats all there is to it. God says 'this is the way', and thats all you need to know.

Trying to convince them otherwise, is both futile, and actually flawed if you try to adopt their logic (which is perfectly self consistent). They have a premise, and they stand by it.

As for the US's position on this in the UN. Its probably diplomatically sensible, in the same way that not taking a Jewish president is. Wrong, maybe, but savy yes.

 

[Fred]

As for the governments stance. People need to get real. Marriage is all about tax benefits.

While I dont agree with the premise of legalized marriage with tax benefits in the first place, opening the door to homosexuals at this time does kinda posit a bit of a slippery slope.

Can I marry my dog for tax benefits? Polygamy?

At what point do you draw the line? The same arguments homosexuals use, can be applied here as well.

Get rid of marriage tax benefits in the first place, then sure we'll have no problem.

The only thing I disagree with though, is the fact that in some states samesex couples cannot adopt. Thats a bit of a nasty slap in the face. So long as they satisfy the requirements other adopters do, I see no problem with it.

 

[RussSchultz]

There's actually a tax dis-insentive to marry. Unless you're talking about inheritance (no tax between spouses).

Medical insurance is a more compelling reason to get married, unless you work for a company like Disney.

 

[Fred]

The marriage tax is vastly smaller than the overall tax perks one gets, including various home ownership writeoffs, medical/car insurance, taxation on death, school writeoffs, application for green cards, etc.

Its always been a big win to get married financially.

 

[RussSchultz]

I'll have to disagree.

Two engineers marrying causes all sorts of tax pain.

My wifes entire income is now taxed at 38% (this alone costs us ~$8k a year)
We're ineligible for any of the educational tax incentives.
Student loan interest is no longer tax deductable


Home ownership tax deductions (interest and local taxes) do not depend on marriage. Inheritance tax only comes into effect if the inheritance is over 600k.

The rest of your perks listed are not tax perks.

 

[John Reynolds]

My point is that homosexuals are as disgusting to me as pedophiles.

And that's your right to feel that way, but from the sound of it if you learned that one of your children's teachers were gay you might go after his or her job, which IMO isn't right. Say that teacher was loved by the students, has a perfectly clean legal record, and is just an all-around good person who does his/her job and never hurts another soul. Isn't it their right as a US citizen to live their life and be happy without being persecuted for what they are? Isn't that what this nation is all about?

To be clear, I don't think the UN needs additional laws on this subject. I don't think the US needs 'hate crime' laws. We just need to equally and fairly enforce the existing laws for all people. And as a Christian I'm not pro-gay by any means, but I try to live with the recognition that God gave us free will and what another adult chooses to do in his/her bedroom with another consenting adult is really none of my business. It's their life and what they're doing does not affect my in any way, so why should I care? Besides, I need to worry about keeping my own backyard clean and not point fingers at others.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The vote is with regard to a measure that condemns discrimination based on sexual orientation. Other countries that are abstaining, or voting against the measure, are Cuba, Latin American countries, and the arab nation.

Well lookie there, our government has something in common with the terrorists and thugs of the world!

Bah!

Well, Natoma,

You seem to have issues if the U.S. ever elected a Jewish President because that would "upset" the "terrorst thugs of the world", and now condemn the current Administration for not doing the same.

Please be consistent. Oh, I forgot...you are consistent in just making posts aimed at bashing Bush.

In any case, lumping together voters who abstain vs. one's who vote against is completely unfair, and wrong to do. I might be concerned if the U.S. was voting AGAINST a such a measure...

 

[Natoma]

As I stated in that thread earlier, I have no problems with a jewish president. However, *everyone* can see the problems that would be caused by having one, *at this time*, when trying to deal with the powder keg that is the middle east.

This ground has already been tread upon, and deftly so, by myself and others (and you admitted as much, in a realistic world having a jewish president could potentially compromise our abilities to look like an impartial arbiter in the middle east), so there is no need to get back into the subject. Especially since this has nothing to do with the topic.

There is certainly consistency with abhoring the policies of this administration, but still realizing that hey, realistically we cannot have a jewish president at this time. They are completely different.

As for your abstain vs. vote against. What reason would the administration have to abstain in a vote like this, other than trying to please their conservative constituency? And please don't tell me that voting for it would inflame the arab world, especially considering the actions of the past year.

And in many cases I might add, abstaining is *just as bad* as voting against a measure. That's just playing politics, but the motivation is certainly clear.

 

[Natoma]

As for the governments stance. People need to get real. Marriage is all about tax benefits.

While I dont agree with the premise of legalized marriage with tax benefits in the first place, opening the door to homosexuals at this time does kinda posit a bit of a slippery slope.

Can I marry my dog for tax benefits? Polygamy?

At what point do you draw the line? The same arguments homosexuals use, can be applied here as well.

Get rid of marriage tax benefits in the first place, then sure we'll have no problem.

The only thing I disagree with though, is the fact that in some states samesex couples cannot adopt. Thats a bit of a nasty slap in the face. So long as they satisfy the requirements other adopters do, I see no problem with it.

Huh. My partner and I are legal domestic partners. We've been together roughly 2.5 years now (officially became a couple on November 28th, 2000), and we even have rings with vow inscribed on the inner surface. We can't go any further than we have currently.

Frankly we could give two craps about the taxes. In actuality the marriage penalty (considering where we are in life. we're not ready for a house, or anything else like that. we're still paying off credit card debt from moving into our lovely apartment, and student loans. we both went to, unfortunately expensive, ivy league schools) would hurt us tremendously because it would place us in a higher tax bracket than we currently both reside in alone. Considering I'm a stickler when it comes to money, we're certainly not doing it for the "tax breaks."

What we do want is the ability to affirm our love for one another just as heterosexuals are allowed to. We're basically a married couple anyways, but the government looks at us and says "no you're not. you're not as good as straight couples." That is what they government tells us by not allowing us to get married, and recognizing that on a federal level.

In fact, congress went out of its way to specifically *define* what marriage is in 1998 with the cursed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that specifically states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Before, it had never been defined. Why was it 'necessary?' Because before DOMA, states like Hawaii and Vermont were making laws that said gay marriages would be legalized in their states.

Now considering that the constitution says in the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" that each state must recognize the laws, proceedings, and records of other states, you can imagine the furor that arose in the conservative portions of this country as gay couples from all over the nation flocked to vermont and hawaii to have their unions fully legalized as marriage. Thus DOMA was born.

But I'm not really worried about DOMA, because it is unconstitutional, so it will eventually be overriden. It states that no state has to accept the marriage performed by a gay couple from another state. So if my partner and I get married in Vermont, New York would not have to recognize that union. This is seriously unconstitutional because it goes directly against the "Full Faith and Credit Clause," so it will be shot down eventually.

But the point is, we want to get married not because of tax breaks. It's the symbolism, in front of the two of us, our families and friends. It's the legal committment. Yes it's ceremonial, but we don't even have the opportunity to participate, for no other reason than we're gay! That's wrong.

Considering over 50% of all marriages in this country fail (my mother's marriage was unfortunately one of them, a few years ago), I don't see how DOMA or any other anti-gay anti-marriage law is supposedly "protecting" the institution of marriage, and why we should be banned. Oh wait, there is no reason, save for outright knee-jerk homophobia.

Heterosexual couples are given the chance to succeed or fail at marriage, as many times as they like in fact. My partner and I want the same opportunity to live our lives to the fullest and in full recognition. My love for him and his love for me is the genuine article. Most certainly more geniune than a lot of the "fake" marriages you see going on in hollywood or in the general populace when people marry for money or convenience, or myriad other reasons that actually have nothing to do with love. I want to marry my partner because I *love* him, and for no other reason.

Unfortunately the government basically says otherwise.

[EDIT]Had a little bit more to get off my chest. [/EDIT]

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I stated in that thread earlier, I have no problems with a jewish president. However, *everyone* can see the problems that would be caused by having one, *at this time*, when trying to deal with the powder keg that is the middle east.

Doing *anything* that is seen as suppportive of non-arab morals can be seen as a problem for the "powder keg" that is the middle east.

...Especially since this has nothing to do with the topic.

Says who? I laid out why it has something to do with the topic. The topic is about the U.S. stance on the U.N. measure, correct? And furthermore, exploring why the U.S. migh have the stance (abstention) that it does?

Is not upsetting the "arab world", and playing the "diplomacy is more important than what is right" card, not a valid point of view? Just you seem seem to admit is the case with a Jewish President?

There is certainly consistency with abhoring the policies of this administration, but still realizing that hey, realistically we cannot have a jewish president at this time. They are completely different.

No, they are not. Because I don't believe, and have never said, that it is not realistic to have a Jewish President. I said it would make things more difficult...not that it's not realistic.

As for your abstain vs. vote against. What reason would the administration have to abstain in a vote like this, other than trying to please their conservative constituency?

What I said above, (which was the reason for bringing up the Jewish President thing) which you have seemed to just dismiss. "Diplomacy in the middle east" vs. "doing the right thing."

And please don't tell me that voting for it would inflame the arab world, especially considering the actions of the past year.

Again, please try and be consistent.

You're allowed to say that electing a Jewish President would inflame the arab world further "even considering the actions of the past year," but I'm not allowed to suggest the same for open support for an issue that is morally against arab culture?

And in many cases I might add, abstaining is *just as bad* as voting against a measure. That's just playing politics, but the motivation is certainly clear.

Ahem. Politics...or diplomacy? You have a very inconsistent way of applying these to this administration. When the administration stands up for something, you say it's "bad diplomacy." When they abstain from taking action one way or another...it's "clear motivation" for something bad?

Give it a rest Natoma. The only motivations that are painfully clear are yours.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

What we do want is the ability to affirm our love for one another just as heterosexuals are allowed to. We're basically a married couple anyways, but the government looks at us and says "no you're not. you're not as good as straight couples." That is what they government tells us by not allowing us to get married, and recognizing that on a federal level.

I don't believe you're being sincere, or if you are, you have a pretty shallow way to determine your affirmation. I suspect your wanting to get "recognized" by the government as married is for reasons other than you "needing affirmation."

Personally, I don't give a crap if the "government" recoginzes my wife and I as married or not.

WE know that we are married. We are recongized as "married" by those who are important to us: our friends, our church, family, etc. That is all the "affirmation" we need. I could care less that I have a "certificate" that states that we are legally married. That doesn't affirm anything to me.

My wife and I love each other, and that's all the affirmation we need.

 

[pascal]

Joe, my guess Natoma just want the society recognition (the cerimonial side) and the government and the law are representative of the society (like a thermometer).

Also there are some more pratical consequences of legality like hereritance, etc...

Natoma, you have my support About the US abstaining to vote is hard to say. It could be interresting to see what is the official government position about that (if any).

Here in Brasil I have seen some public recognition of the gay marriage with all its pratical legal consequences, but there is still lots of work to be done.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, my guess Natoma just want the society recognition (the cerimonial side) and the government and the law are representative of the society (like a thermometer).

Like I said, a bit shallow. Using the government recoginition as the thermometor of "marraige", which is all about love.

Also there are some more pratical consequences of legality like hereritance, etc...

Which are some of the things I suspect Natoma is actually concerned about. And many of which are valid...I just don't see the need to disguise that with "need to feel affirmed" claims.

 

[RussSchultz]

Marriage, as defined by the folks who defined marriage, is indeed a union between a man and a wife. Gays shouldn't try to shoe-horn their definition of marriage into the commonly accepted one, but that doesn't mean their relationship is any less important to them, or shouldn't be afforded the same legal benefits. I just think trying to get a gay-union recognized as a marriage is going to be forever unwelcome.

Personally, the proper solution would be to abolish marriage alltogether as a legal status.

Allow people to designate heirs/partners/whatever you want to call it for the legal ramifications, but leave the church, and therefor marriage, out of it.

Of course, centuries of common and written law will go out the window...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Personally, the proper solution would be to abolish marriage alltogether as a legal status.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

I agree with that as well. That is really the ultimate and just solution.

 

[Natoma]

Joe, my guess Natoma just want the society recognition (the cerimonial side) and the government and the law are representative of the society (like a thermometer).

Also there are some more pratical consequences of legality like hereritance, etc...

Natoma, you have my support About the US abstaining to vote is hard to say. It could be interresting to see what is the official government position about that (if any).

Here in Brasil I have seen some public recognition of the gay marriage with all its pratical legal consequences, but there is still lots of work to be done.

Exactly. I don't consider legal status and acceptance of our relationship to be shallow at all. Our friends, co-workers, and family are all aware of our relationship and support us and see how deeply committed we are to one another (see Stvn's post that I quoted on page 3 as an example).

*However*, saying that "oh well, as long as you've got love, you don't need the government to retract its statement that gay marriages/relationships are invalid" is self-defeating Joe.

I don't even have to comment further on it because it is blatently defeatist.

p.s.: Joe, when you learn to respond to the entire thought of a post, rather than picking apart bits and pieces here and there as you see fit, then you'll become a good debater.

You build an entire argument, nay an entire post, on tiny snippets of someone else's post, instead of looking at everything in context. You can't debate in that manner effectively.

I've posted on your style of debate before Joe, and, in PMs and in real life, discussed it with other people. It's shallow, and not constructive at all because then people end up repeating their pov over and over and over again, while you only snip out a tiny portion and ignore the rest.

Please improve. You do nothing to add to the quality of this board with your current style.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Exactly. I don't consider legal status and acceptance of our relationship to be shallow at all.

Neither do I. But you said:

What we do want is the ability to affirm our love for one another just as heterosexuals are allowed to.

You said affirm our love. Not affirm our legal marital standing.

Those are two entirely different things.

Our friends, co-workers, and family are all aware of our relationship and support us and see how deeply committed we are to one another (see Stvn's post that I quoted on page 3 as an example).

Right. And that's all you should need to have your love affirmed.

*However*, saying that "oh well, as long as you've got love, you don't need the government to retract its statement that gay marriages/relationships are invalid" is self-defeating Joe.

Personally, I'm more with Russ on this. I'd rather just see the government eliminate the legal standing of "marriages" altogether. That does open up a large can of worms though, but is ultimately the right thing to do, IMO.

I don't even have to comment further on it because it is blatently defeatist.

You don't have to comment on anything at all.

p.s.: Joe, when you learn to respond to the entire thought of a post, rather than picking apart bits and pieces here and there as you see fit, then you'll become a good debater.

Um, I do respond to the entire thought in the thread. I just don't REPEAT the entire thread in my post, thankyouverymuch. I just repeat the single most relevant quotes, so that you specifically know which points I'm referring to.

You build an entire argument, nay an entire post, on tiny snippets of someone else's post, instead of looking at everything in context. You can't debate in that manner effectively.

Wrong.

Your entire posts and thought process are built by the totality of all your statements. If you make statements that are not true or are contradictory (given the context), then that puts your entire argument in question and that is an effective form of debate.

I've posted on your style of debate before Joe, and, in PMs and in real life, discussed it with other people.

Oddly, I've not discussed your style of debate (duck and evade) with anyone. Don't need to waste my time.

It's shallow, and not constructive at all because then people end up repeating their pov over and over and over again, while you only snip out a tiny portion and ignore the rest.

That's funny...what I'm trying to do is get you, one time, to state your POV without being contradictory. You can repeat your POV over and over if you like, but if it's contradictory every time you state it, I'll keep asking for clarifications.

Until the point you decide of course to just ignore the contradiction alltogether, which is your usual tactic.

Please improve. You do nothing to add to the quality of this board with your current style.

Give me a break.

When one resorts to making accusations about post quality, you really must have nothing of value to say. I suppose next you'll be calling me "Hitler"....

 

[Natoma]

Why do people get married Joe? To *affirm* their love for one another through the ceremony of marriage. People are together for years and years and years, yet you have many that *still* push for entering into the construct of marriage with their girlfriends or boyfriends.

Why is that the case if marriage is "just" a legality and has nothing to do with love? Why do men give women engagement rings?

Why? Because it's ceremonial! Gay men and women simply want the ability to participate in those ceremonies, as they are designed for couples to indeed show their love for one another in the deepest, most relational way possible.

It's quite obvious what marriage means to people, as more than just a legality.

 

[RussSchultz]

I understand that need, Natoma. However, there is no way in hell you're going to get your marriage affirmed by the Southern Baptist Church I grew up in, regardless of how much legal recognition you get. I suspect you'd never be legally recognized in an islamic state, either.

Marriage is both a religious and a legal construct. You can fight and get one side of it, but with a large portion of the population, you'll never get the other.

You cannot force your religious views on people, and you shouldn't try.

 

[Stvn]

My point is that homosexuals are as disgusting to me as pedophiles. The child rights activists and a number of gay and lesbian groups have been trying to lower the age of consent to that they are not molesters under the law. You understand? The notion is really that the laws create morals not the other way around.

I submit this argument:

First i would like to coldly define some terms.

A hetrosexual is defined as someone whose sexuality is based upon an attraction and sexual stimulation of a member of the opposite sex.

A homosexual is defined as someone whose sexuality is based upon an attraction and sexual stimulation of a member of the same sex. (moral judgements and opinions aside).

A pedafile is someone who is sexually aroused and attracted to the pre-pubescent members of his or her own species. (No comments about gender here, since that is not inherient in the definition of pedafilia).

If you are to say that a pedafile and a homosexual are not all that different, and that many homosexuals are themselves pedafiles. That these 2 things go hand in hand. I see this as implying the following fact.

A homosexual is someone who is attacted to and sexually stimulated by members of thier own gender, including pre-pubescent members of their own gender.

This contradicts the initial definition (that i think most people will agree upon). But if we were to allow this to become part of the initially definition, then we too must change the definition of hetrosexual as well.

A heterosexual is someone who is attacted to and sexually stimulated by members of thier opposite gender, including pre-pubescent members of their opposite gender.

Now you may look at as not being right, or fair. But allow me to continue.

Homo means "of the same type".
Hetero means "of different type".

So there is no room in those words for the idea of pedafilia, since they do not have anything to do with sexuality or attraction.

So by implying that somewhere in the definition of homosexualilty, you can find a link to pedafilia. Then the only place left is in the definition of the word "sexuality", since we have eliminated "homo" and "hetero".

So are we to believe that inherint in the defintion of sexuality is the inclusion of pedafilia? Or is pedafilia something altogether different?

I would side more with the later, as i think most of society would.

Sure, there are plenty of homosexual pedafiles, and many heterosexual pedafiles. But they are certainly not pedafiles based on their homo or hetro leaning. They are pedafile because they are sexually aroused by pre-pubescent children regardless of gender.

Please think about the lines your draw, and what they imply.

-stvn