S.F. Gives finger to Feds, Ok's same sex marriages...

[Reverend Love]

This aught to be interesting. With Bush playing to his political base the far right will feel compelled to interject as the "moral conscience" of America. It'll be a hard sell especially in the lefty's own backyard.

The Governator is already on record for supporting gay rights. Seeing how or if the right tries to pull him into this should again be interesting (after all he's Republican thus a rightwing waco ) He's definitely out of party step concerning this issue.

My Magic Eight ball foresees the Supreme Justices stepping in....or at least the feds threatening CA budgets if they don’t in line.

All in all some spectacular fireworks are in order.

-- My opinion on this matter: I don't give a rat's oink what people do in the privacy of their own home. If two men or two women desire to be wed, then I'm for it...this is the land of the free is it not? The whole argument of this institution being only for man and women is bull**** Christian dogma slipping into politics again.

 

[Academy Man]

I don't think that Bush will try to challenge the governator on anything. Has anyone noticed Arnold hasn't been in the news lately? That means he doing well, only bad stuff gets in the news.

 

[Svenmonkey]

The whole issue is absurd. There is no reason not to allow same-sex couples to marry, and that's pretty much all there is to know about the issue.

 

[train]

I got no problem with same sex marriages...

*Nods his head in a political manner...*

train in 2012!!!...

 

[Chaos Turtle]

I tried marriage. Dunno why anyone would fight for that "right."

...oh you know I'm kiddin'

 

[Spiderman]

Actually, I just read Arnold in my paper over the weekend about how he's still having trouble with the budget and all. He's just not making "news" because... nothing has stood out lately.

 

[Reverend Love]

He's also recently denounced the marriages due to legal issues (against state law). However I don't think he's on record for actually stating that it's amoral or that marriage should be between opposite sexes.

I read a paper saying this is simply playing to his base for support to push through selling state bonds. Bonds would raise badly needed funding to alleviate some of the state budget mess (thanks Gray you twit). Obviously the right is non to pleased about the idea.

 

[DÛke]

...

I'm sorry, but homosexuality is one thing and homosexual "right" to marry is an entire different issue.

Homosexuality is a depravity in my eyes (for reasons we have discussed in another thread), and although I have not one bit of resentment against it, I believe that, if it must be practiced, it must not become a "right." Love whoever you want - love is a feeling after all, not a fully conscious control. But do not make a right out of it - I don't like people who try to "change the world" and its standards because they are depraved and want to deflate morals, principles, values and tradition because of what they can’t control or what they lack in themselves…

And marriage is, at the very bottom, mostly a religious ceremony, or at least something that should be so sacred that, commonly, it is done within a religious setting. Now that would be the last thing needed for religion to be completely misused, when it is entrusted to give blessing to the depraved.

But hey! as if "straight" people are not depraved? They get to marry under holy settings as well...and...I guess...since depravity is the common cause of the day, homosexuals gaining the right to marry isn't, shouldn’t, and can’t at all be that bad, huh?

 

[train]

Duke... You mentioned marriage being mainly a religious ceremony, and it is. It's definitely not supported in the constitution... or Bill of rights... (but can be included under "free _____")

It's not a "right" for opposite sexes to be married - but it is "socially" and "religiously" acceptable...

What they're mainly fighting for is equal treatment of their spouses if they do have same sex marriages - which is what is not currently offered by most companies in the world... Standing behind the traditional "rights" of married opposite-sex couples...

The bible doesn't even state that marriage is a "right", nor any other religious volume I can think of... But supports marriages in beliefs... Though it doesn't punish someone for never marrying...

when/where did marriage become a right - it hasn't, and now that there's a different perspective on the table - it's being made to look as it is...

 

[Spiderman]

Yeah, I'm getting the impression it's more the "legal" rights that they want to get recognized through marriage, not necessarily the "right to marriage" (although obviously the latter leads to the former).

 

[train]

I'd like to add that I'm exuberantly married - and wouldn't have it any ther way...

 

[Academy Man]

What most gays want is the same privelidges married straight people get. Here are a few advantages of being married:

1. Shared Taxes. Married couples get to average their salaries to reach a lower bracket which benefits married couples with one high-wage worker and one low-wage worker (typical of a family where perhaps the mother works "mom's hours" to supplement the budget while the kids are young.) Hence Gay couples in a comparable situation are taxed at a higher rate.

2. Next-of-kin privileges. If one partner gets sick or dies, the other can be shut out of the process by the family, particularly if it is an "enlightened" one wrt to homosexuality that has perhaps disowned the child until the catastrophic illness has occured. At times, these folks can even be precluded from attending the funeral. Marriage would place the control of these gut wrenching situations into the control of the spouse and not the family. Think of it another way, what if your husband's family despised you and were able to keep you out of his intensive care room or, god forbid, keep you from his funeral. Gays take enough heat in society, I think their grieving for loved ones is one area where even the most homophobic of homophobes ought to be able to cut them a little slack.

3. Bereavement leave: many employers only grant leave to workers who lose close relatives. Significant Others (SOs) are not factored into the equation, so to speak.

4. Wrongful death benefits. Gay spouses could sue for loss of consortium if their partner were killed by a reckless act.

5. Pensions and health insurance. Few employers grant benefits to unmarried partners (SOs). Even if granted, the government taxes it. Spousal benefits are tax free, on the other hand.

6. Immigration. In marrying an American, aliens automatically gain permanent residence status. Gay couples cannot do that, and then have to split up when the visa expires.

7. Social Security. Spouses, not partners, receive survivor benefits.

8. Inheritance: Gay partners pay estate taxes, married couples are exempt.

9. Child custody: Sanctioning marriage would greatly facilitate the process.

10. Family discounts: many organizations offer reduced rate family memberships. In most cases gay couples don't qualify and therefore have to pay the higher rate.

11. Car ownership automatically transfers to a spouse, but not to a surviving partner.

12. Widows/Widowers have standing to challenge their late spouse's will.

13. Spouses cannot be compelled to testify in court against one another.


Here's a few more privileges denied to gay couples:

Accidental death benefits for the surviving spouse of a government employee
Appointment as guardian of a minor
Award of child custody in divorce proceedings
Beneficial owner status of corporate securities
Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses
Burial of service member's dependents
Certificates of occupation
Consent to post-mortem examinations
Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases
Control, division, acquisition and disposition of community property
Criminal injuries compensation
Death benefits for surviving spouse for government employee
Disclosure of vital statistics records
Division of property after dissolution of marriage
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation
Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance or burial payments.
Exemption from conveyance tax
Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner occupants
Funeral leave for government employees
Homes of totally disabled veterans exempt from property taxes
Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption and estimates
Inheritance of land patents
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with partner's children
Making, revoking and objecting to anatomical gifts
Making partner medical decisions
Nonresident tuition deferential waiver
Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings
Notice of probate proceedings
Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee
Payment of workers' compensation benefits after death
Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation
Proof of business partnership
Public assistance from the Department of Human Services qualifications at a facility for the elderly
Real property exemption from attachment or execution
Right of survivorship to custodial trust
Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate
Right to change names
Right to enter into premarital agreement
Right to file action for nonsupport
Right to inherit property
Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land
Right to sue for tort and death by wrong ful act
Right to support after divorce
Right to support from spouse
Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment
Rights by way of dour or courtesy
Rights to notice, protection, benefits and inheritance under the uniform probate code
Social security benefits on the death of spouse
Sole interest in property
Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications
Spousal immigration benefits
Status of children
Support payments in divorce action
Tax relief for natural disaster losses
Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death
Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment
In vitro fertilization coverage
Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics


In the united states, marriage is a civil contract, it has nothing to do with the church, often, couples will want to be married in a church, but it is not neccessary. At Duke, marriage is alot more than a religious ceremony, stating all of the above reasons. Even if you think being gay is wrong, they have the constitutional right of "equal protection" by laws, in the US under the 14th ammendment. They deserve all the rights and priviledges as any other citizens.

Now that would be the last thing needed for religion to be completely misused, when it is entrusted to give blessing to the depraved.

is what Duke posted, gays don't want to force their way into churches, they just want to be treated equally by the government and corporations.

 

[Reverend Love]

gays don't want to force their way into churches, they just want to be treated equally by the government and corporations.

Very well spoken Academy Man.

 

[DÛke]

...

But "gay people" are not equal to people. I suppose soon, out of "good generousity of heart," we should start counting apes, pigs, and rats as "equals" because hey, you know, they are alive too!

Sorry, but just because it looks like a man, doesn't mean it's a man; I'll have you know that the term "man" (or "human" for the less refined ears), is only a term - it in itself does not establish equality. That we are all placed under the heading of "man" does not make us equal, that we all show similar physiological responses and demands does not make us equal, that we all have near identical biological make up and structure does not make us equal: what makes us equal is our temperament, mentality, character, principles. Those who say we’re “equal” on the basis of physio-bio-physical appearance and structure are in fact the highly inferior sub-species of “man” who, having encountered the difficulty of being unable to equalize itself to the potentiality and greatness of others, establishes with cunning our “equality” through mere appearances and “science,” and most easily by the falsification of language and words, such as, "man," "mankind," "humanity." We're not all "humans," sorry, and some of us are as worthless as the cockroach I step on and crush without even realizing it. You want to know if, for example, you and I are equal? Tell me about your highest principle, the one cause you are willing to kill and die for without hesitation, the one center of gravity the rules you; tell me about your values (and by values, one always means the ability to differentiate and classify people, and not "accept" and "tolerate" them...) - then, we'll see how equal we are. I eat, you eat. But pigs eat too. You breathe, I breathe - but filthy sewer rats breathe as well. Not only are we not equal, but it is immoral to say we're equal.

And of course marriage is more than a "religious" ceremony - I never said it was primarily a religious ceremony. I said at the bottommost level it is a religious ceremony (but no one believes in religion any more, no one is strong enough, so I guess it doesn’t count, huh?). As for the "benefits" – it figures! It's all about the benefits with people, even when they claim they're in love. "Practicality," I guess, right? And whoever thinks love is practical? Only those who can't love. And that, I'm afraid, includes homosexuals as much as "normal people."

 

[Reverend Love]

Duke you never actually counterpoint anyone's claims with arguments anywhere near grounded in reality. You simply pound away on the keyboard without thought, foaming at the mouth, impressed by you own weak logic....much like a monkey.

Ooh well. After that whole anti-American spiel you blabbered mindlessly on about I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[train]

Duke referred to them as people... that's all that really need be said...

Benefits are not discriminated against people due to intelligence, height, etc... so why sexual preference?...

 

[DÛke]

...

Awww. I think RL may be a little ticked because he might be a homosexual himself. <grin> It's ok, don't lash out at me - homosexuality is ok, I just don't think it's natural, that's all. (Usually, "closted" homosexuals who haven't come into terms with themselves react kind of like RL...) It's so cute to see. But sure, I'll dance for ya baby...hehe...

 

[Spiderman]

DUke, thank you for not continuing what Rev. Love started.

Rev, I edited your post for the personal attacks, which were unneeded. If you disagree with the ideas, just say so, don't attack the person, or at least do it in the Battle Forum. We don't need that here.

 

[Apollo]

Spidey: DUke did continue it--he just called RL gay and is obviously deliberately provoking him. If you're going to edit RL's post, you ought to take the pointless taunting out of DUke's as well.

 

[DÛke]

...

But calling someone a homosexual shouldn't be taken to be defamatory since, in regards to this particular thread, homosexuality is made to be viewed as if it were normal. The last person who should be offended by being called, or mistaken for, a homosexual should be RL - because he obviously thinks they are normal human beings (and they certainly are, in the sense that they did not choose their sexual preference...)...why would my comments towards him being a homosexual offend him one bit?