On the reliGion argument...I have yet to find it anywhere in the New Testament where it says gays are a bad thing, Jesus never brought it up...in the old testament it does say it, but it also says that shaving is a sin on par with being gay...I don't see any of these Jesus freaks protesting Gillette. Religious reasoning for oppression is ignorant bullshit.
The reason it doesn't hit the same fever pitch in the US is - as I suggested earlier - marriage is just a lot more important to Americans than it is to most Europeans. "Over there," the difference b/t a civil union vs. marriage is mostly cultural/religious.
Over here, it goes far deeper.
While Americans do marry at higher rates than Europeans, they also divorce at higher rates. I think Americans take the idea of marriage more seriously than actual marriage. According to the 2001 US census, first marriages that end in divorce last about 8 years, on average.
Like many other Americans, I do think that marriage is an important (though not the only) building block of society. Thus, we should be encouraging more gays to marry. It seems counterintuitive to repeatedly posit the importance of marriage, and then deny others the legal ability to pursue it.
Is there currently a movement underway to garner support for the polygamists' cause? Sorry, I hadn't heard of it. Send me a link, though.
Same-sex couples in the US aim to gain the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples have . These rights and benefits are based upon a dyadic system which is not dependent upon sex. The same-sex debate has vacillated around semantics for years: one man and one woman versus just two people. Introducing a third party would require re-structuring those dyadic marriage laws. So really, it's apples to oranges as the definition of marriage in a polygamist relationship has yet to be defined (if a man marries three woman, are those three women also married to each other? does that make them lesbians? can you file joint taxes with 3 spouses?), whereas the precedent has already been set for same-sex marriage in 6 states + DC.
A few well-written op-eds in the Times and maybe a couple interviews by Ellen, and the polygamists might have me on their side by Christmas. But as far as I can see, if polygamists really wanted to be accepted by the same America many of their sects have shunned, I would have heard them by now.
finelikewine"ONCE UPON A TIME, I HAD A VINYL." http://www.discogs.com/user/permabulker 1,416 Posts
[quote author="Rockadelic" date=1336689320
It's widely stated that the Religious Right are the folks who oppose it here in the U.S. and if anyone, they are the reason it's not legal....so who are the people in places like the UK, Germany, France, etc., etc. that are keeping gay marriage from becoming legal?
According to the UN there are 192 recognized countries on this planet and only 10(5%) have legalized gay marriages.
In Germany we have a middle right wing party in governement called CDU (Christian Democratic Union). So go figure...
[quote author="Rockadelic" date=1336689320
It's widely stated that the Religious Right are the folks who oppose it here in the U.S. and if anyone, they are the reason it's not legal....so who are the people in places like the UK, Germany, France, etc., etc. that are keeping gay marriage from becoming legal?
According to the UN there are 192 recognized countries on this planet and only 10(5%) have legalized gay marriages.
In the UK the debate has been hijacked by small but very vocal Christian groups rabidly opposing the Anglican church marrying gay couples. This was never actually the issue. Gay rights campaigners here are not gunning to get hitched in a church, and the church is free to have its own debate about who it marries. It's about legal parity of marriage and civil partnerships which currently differ in subtle but significant ways.
The godsquad have stirred this up into shitstorm about religious freedom and the state forcing the church to conduct gay marriages. The actual debate has nothing to do with marriage in church. Interestingly, a lot of the funding for the 'no' campaign is said to come from American Baptist groups who want to safeguard the sanctity of marriage as if they have some fucking trademark on it.. These are the same groups who orchestrated mass protests against Jerry Springer The Musical a few years ago. That time they failed because although no-one cared about the show to start with they gave it so much publicity that it became a huge long-running success. This time they've done a better job of muddying the waters but I think it's as much about flexing their muscles as getting their way...
9 out 10 married couples I know got spliced in registry offices in non-religious services but they are legally 'married'. Gay couples have to be content with civil partnership status.
The guy behind her is like "This is the last I agree to drive my grandmother anywhere. She told me this was going to be about re-zoning her driveway! See?? It says 'Re-zoning at 48 Oak Drive' right here!"
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Kinda funny to me watching people who espouse democracy hate it when they are on the losing end.
That's the next step, followed by bestiality and then Monte Carlos.
At least if it all goes according to plan...
You know, I don't know if Rey was trying to be funny or not, but *if* gay marriage were guaranteed throughout the U.S. (all signs point to it won't be), polygamy would be the logical next debate, particularly in the western states where Mormonism is strong. Polygamy was an enormously contentious issue (along with allegiance to the U.S. federal gov't) in the drive for Utah becoming a state.
Kinda funny to me watching people who espouse democracy hate it when they are on the losing end.
There's nothing funny about allowing a majority to deprive a minority of their rights, democratically or otherwise. Would you be as flippant if an amendment to outlaw interracial marriage was voted on and passed democratically?
Unrelated to the above, but an interesting read on gay rights from Huey Newton: http://tinyurl.com/bwe9x4x
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
I prefer a representative republic over a democracy...where elected leaders would hopefully override the will of the electorate when that electorate voted out of ignorance.
Also, I don't see gay marriage as the life or death issue some are making it out to be.
That's the next step, followed by bestiality and then Monte Carlos.
At least if it all goes according to plan...
You know, I don't know if Rey was trying to be funny or not, but *if* gay marriage were guaranteed throughout the U.S. (all signs point to it won't be), polygamy would be the logical next debate.
I honestly don't see this as the next logical step, or a related issue at all. Outside of Mormonism, there would be very little impetus for such a bill, and this could easily be rejected on legal grounds alone, without any faux moraility needed.
Also, I don't see gay marriage as the life or death issue some are making it out to be.
Not directly...but it is a contributor to how the lives of gays and lesbians are viewed, treated and mistreated...sometimes to the point of death.
Are you playing devil's advocate? Or you really not see/believe how rights denied a targeted group factors into their lives and deaths? Or another option, you don't really care?
Kinda funny to me watching people who espouse democracy hate it when they are on the losing end.
No surprise that you find the relegation of people to second class citizenship to be "funny". Wave that Confederate flag proud, Jim Bob.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
I don't think I necessarily view marriage classifications/benefits as "rights".
If it's going to be phrased as the right to be treated equally, okay...I get that. But again, it seems like a $500 tax break is almost the extent of what's being denied here.
I mean, go ahead and make gay marriage legal already.
But again, there are far more important issues to be spending so much time on.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Bon Vivant said:
HarveyCanal said:
Kinda funny to me watching people who espouse democracy hate it when they are on the losing end.
No surprise that you find the relegation of people to second class citizenship to be "funny". Wave that Confederate flag proud, Jim Bob.
Second class citizens when it comes to marriage, period. And I've already said go ahead and change that. Otherwise, what rights are being denied to the gay community? Talk about blowing shit out of proportion...
I don't think I necessarily view marriage classifications/benefits as "rights".
Good thing it's not up to you then.
US Supreme Court disagreed with you in Loving v. Virgina where they clearly stated that the right to marraige was a "fundamental" right under the US Constituton. In that case, Virginia tried to prohibit interracial marriage. Is that funny to you, too? Maybe African-Americans were just blowing it out of proportion?
Kinda funny to me watching people who espouse democracy hate it when they are on the losing end.
No surprise that you find the relegation of people to second class citizenship to be "funny". Wave that Confederate flag proud, Jim Bob.
Second class citizens when it comes to marriage, period. And I've already said go ahead and change that. Otherwise, what rights are being denied to the gay community? Talk about blowing shit out of proportion...
Being a second class citizen in any sense means you're a second class citizen, period.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Actually yeah, because had that been the case in Texas and it stood, it would have saved me years of pain.
Actually yeah, because had that been the case in Texas and it stood, it would have saved me years of pain.
Marriage is overrated.
Ah, Harvey had his feelings hurt, so he doesn't care if others are denied their rights under the law.
That's awesome.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Bon Vivant said:
HarveyCanal said:
Bon Vivant said:
HarveyCanal said:
Kinda funny to me watching people who espouse democracy hate it when they are on the losing end.
No surprise that you find the relegation of people to second class citizenship to be "funny". Wave that Confederate flag proud, Jim Bob.
Second class citizens when it comes to marriage, period. And I've already said go ahead and change that. Otherwise, what rights are being denied to the gay community? Talk about blowing shit out of proportion...
Being a second class citizen in any sense means you're a second class citizen, period.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Bon Vivant said:
HarveyCanal said:
Actually yeah, because had that been the case in Texas and it stood, it would have saved me years of pain.
Marriage is overrated.
Ah, Harvey had his feelings hurt, so he doesn't care if others are denied their rights under the law.
That's awesome.
Look, to me and you marriage can be 2 people of the opposite sex. But not everyone agrees with that. In other words, it's not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. In fact, you are applying quite a bit of hurt feelings to the way you are handling this issue. But whatever, it ain't up to either of us.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
[.
^^^DRAMA QUEEN.
^^^BIGOT.
Why not a Hitler? Or how about a Satan? Might as well go all the way.
Comments
While Americans do marry at higher rates than Europeans, they also divorce at higher rates. I think Americans take the idea of marriage more seriously than actual marriage. According to the 2001 US census, first marriages that end in divorce last about 8 years, on average.
Like many other Americans, I do think that marriage is an important (though not the only) building block of society. Thus, we should be encouraging more gays to marry. It seems counterintuitive to repeatedly posit the importance of marriage, and then deny others the legal ability to pursue it.
That's the next step, followed by bestiality and then Monte Carlos.
At least if it all goes according to plan...
Is there currently a movement underway to garner support for the polygamists' cause? Sorry, I hadn't heard of it. Send me a link, though.
Same-sex couples in the US aim to gain the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples have . These rights and benefits are based upon a dyadic system which is not dependent upon sex. The same-sex debate has vacillated around semantics for years: one man and one woman versus just two people. Introducing a third party would require re-structuring those dyadic marriage laws. So really, it's apples to oranges as the definition of marriage in a polygamist relationship has yet to be defined (if a man marries three woman, are those three women also married to each other? does that make them lesbians? can you file joint taxes with 3 spouses?), whereas the precedent has already been set for same-sex marriage in 6 states + DC.
A few well-written op-eds in the Times and maybe a couple interviews by Ellen, and the polygamists might have me on their side by Christmas. But as far as I can see, if polygamists really wanted to be accepted by the same America many of their sects have shunned, I would have heard them by now.
It's widely stated that the Religious Right are the folks who oppose it here in the U.S. and if anyone, they are the reason it's not legal....so who are the people in places like the UK, Germany, France, etc., etc. that are keeping gay marriage from becoming legal?
According to the UN there are 192 recognized countries on this planet and only 10(5%) have legalized gay marriages.
In Germany we have a middle right wing party in governement called CDU (Christian Democratic Union). So go figure...
In the UK the debate has been hijacked by small but very vocal Christian groups rabidly opposing the Anglican church marrying gay couples. This was never actually the issue. Gay rights campaigners here are not gunning to get hitched in a church, and the church is free to have its own debate about who it marries. It's about legal parity of marriage and civil partnerships which currently differ in subtle but significant ways.
The godsquad have stirred this up into shitstorm about religious freedom and the state forcing the church to conduct gay marriages. The actual debate has nothing to do with marriage in church. Interestingly, a lot of the funding for the 'no' campaign is said to come from American Baptist groups who want to safeguard the sanctity of marriage as if they have some fucking trademark on it.. These are the same groups who orchestrated mass protests against Jerry Springer The Musical a few years ago. That time they failed because although no-one cared about the show to start with they gave it so much publicity that it became a huge long-running success. This time they've done a better job of muddying the waters but I think it's as much about flexing their muscles as getting their way...
9 out 10 married couples I know got spliced in registry offices in non-religious services but they are legally 'married'. Gay couples have to be content with civil partnership status.
You know, I don't know if Rey was trying to be funny or not, but *if* gay marriage were guaranteed throughout the U.S. (all signs point to it won't be), polygamy would be the logical next debate, particularly in the western states where Mormonism is strong. Polygamy was an enormously contentious issue (along with allegiance to the U.S. federal gov't) in the drive for Utah becoming a state.
There's nothing funny about allowing a majority to deprive a minority of their rights, democratically or otherwise. Would you be as flippant if an amendment to outlaw interracial marriage was voted on and passed democratically?
Unrelated to the above, but an interesting read on gay rights from Huey Newton: http://tinyurl.com/bwe9x4x
Also, I don't see gay marriage as the life or death issue some are making it out to be.
I honestly don't see this as the next logical step, or a related issue at all. Outside of Mormonism, there would be very little impetus for such a bill, and this could easily be rejected on legal grounds alone, without any faux moraility needed.
Not directly...but it is a contributor to how the lives of gays and lesbians are viewed, treated and mistreated...sometimes to the point of death.
Are you playing devil's advocate? Or you really not see/believe how rights denied a targeted group factors into their lives and deaths? Or another option, you don't really care?
No surprise that you find the relegation of people to second class citizenship to be "funny". Wave that Confederate flag proud, Jim Bob.
If it's going to be phrased as the right to be treated equally, okay...I get that. But again, it seems like a $500 tax break is almost the extent of what's being denied here.
I mean, go ahead and make gay marriage legal already.
But again, there are far more important issues to be spending so much time on.
Second class citizens when it comes to marriage, period. And I've already said go ahead and change that. Otherwise, what rights are being denied to the gay community? Talk about blowing shit out of proportion...
Good thing it's not up to you then.
US Supreme Court disagreed with you in Loving v. Virgina where they clearly stated that the right to marraige was a "fundamental" right under the US Constituton. In that case, Virginia tried to prohibit interracial marriage. Is that funny to you, too? Maybe African-Americans were just blowing it out of proportion?
Being a second class citizen in any sense means you're a second class citizen, period.
Marriage is overrated.
Ah, Harvey had his feelings hurt, so he doesn't care if others are denied their rights under the law.
That's awesome.
^^^DRAMA QUEEN.
^^^BIGOT.
Look, to me and you marriage can be 2 people of the opposite sex. But not everyone agrees with that. In other words, it's not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. In fact, you are applying quite a bit of hurt feelings to the way you are handling this issue. But whatever, it ain't up to either of us.
Why not a Hitler? Or how about a Satan? Might as well go all the way.
This is very true...
Haha! I'm saving that for another time.