Poly, You are seriously funny sometimes! Creative writing! Hey, if I ever see Bill in a speedo, Ill want some serious couch time, also! 
As far as being homosexual and marrying anyway, claiming to have changed, I’m talking about repression. Flinx doesn’t fit this criteria, but I wasn’t talking about his situation.
Esprix
Good. 
I was concerned that you not be one of those people who fails to draw the distinction and claims that everything not exercised is repressed. Obviously you had already seen and bypassed my point.
Esprix:
“Realized”? My, isn’t our society the ultimate in enlightenment. More accurate would be “decided.”
Have I been trying to deny that such has occurred?
If you re-read my post, you’d see that I’m agreeing with you on this score.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Fine, “decided.” Are you disagreeing with these decisions?
{SIGH} Sorry, sorry - been reading too many posts by Orion***********************…
Esprix
Chaim Mattis Keller
[/QUOTE]
Esprix:
On slavery per se? No…because in a secular society, there is logically no “higher power” to determine which people have more or fewer rights than which other people. Bear in mind, though, that the Bible does not describe a secular society, but rather one in which G-d’s will runs society.
However, lest you think I’m indulging in mere semantical games, there are decisions of our society that I disagree with. Take abortion, for example. Those who advocate abortion rights would say “Our society has realized that a fetus is nothing but a mass of tissue.” But that’s not a factual realization, such as the heliocentric vs. geocentric solar system, or round Earth vs. flat Earth. It’s a value judgment, a matter which society decided on. And decisions can definitely diverge from one another.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Not wanting to start yet another gay-related thread, and thinking this might have more to do with ethics than the simple matter of same-sex marriages, I mentioned this on another thread but it got buried, and I’d really like to see what people think.
A black man falls in love with a white woman, and they want to get married - this is a choice. There was a lot of fighting over allowing inter-racial marriages at the time over this choice. Now, some opponents of same-sex marriages use the argument that homosexuality is a choice, and we should not legitimize this behavior. Well, wasn’t putting an end to the ban on inter-racial marriages the same thing - legitimizing a behavior that, at the time, was a very hot-button issue that many people opposed on religious, racial and, yes, even biological/genetic/racial purity grounds?
I see a comparison. Thoughts?
Esprix
Esprix:
Since you have brought up the issue of SSM again, I’d like to make some observations, then ask a question. I’ve carefully considered what has been written in defense of homosexuality in this and other threads, and am prepared to do a modified/quasi flip-flop on my former position. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that real discrimination against *real[/] people is occurring soley on the basis of their ‘sexual orientation’. However, I do not think that legislation allowing SSM will end that discrimination. Nor do I believe that ‘same sex marriage’, as an institutional concept is about to happen any time soon. It occurs to me, correct me if I’m wrong, that homosexuals are more interested in the benefits (legal rights ie:lower tax rate, transfer of property ownership, medical, etc.) to be derived from a partnership equating to marriage. In other words, the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. It also occurs to me -living in California where the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ Prop 22, just passed with an overwhelming majority- that traditional marriage NEEDS defending. I’m not so sure, however, that the first line of defense should be against homosexual intrusion. Traditional marriage has enough problems of its own, including divorce, infidelity, abuse & family abandonment, to address first. (the mote in the eye clause).
I’ve heard the term Domestic Partnerhip Act, but have not investigated what it mean. How would take to some kind of legislation that would allow the aforementioned benefits to inure to same sex couples, outside of the concept of marriage?
Califboomer, “…However, I do not think that legislation allowing SSM will end that discrimination…”
Alas, you are correct in that assumption. Only teaching in an open non-judgemental arena will expose the discrepencies between gay and straight life.
“It also occurs to me -living in California where the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ Prop 22, just passed with an overwhelming majority- that traditional marriage NEEDS defending.”
Well traditional marriage doesn’t really need defending because people get married all the time. It mainly needs things that you hit on in your second line of thought where you said, “Traditional marriage has enough problems of its own, including divorce, infidelity, abuse & family abandonment, to address first.” What really needs to happen here is that people need to know what they want and be ready to accept the consequences of married life, gay or straight. It is not something that is heterosexually nor homosexually exclusive. Marriages have problems, how the people deal with these problems is what married life is about.
“I’m not so sure, however, that the first line of defense should be against homosexual intrusion.”
That is how we as gay people see the radical right and their defense of marriage. Many gay relationships work out unsurprisingly similar to a straight relationship. They share chores, keep eachother company, help eachother out in times of need, etc. The only real difference is that the people in the relationship are of the same sex.
“I’ve heard the term Domestic Partnerhip Act, but have not investigated what it mean. How would take to some kind of legislation that would allow the aforementioned benefits to inure to same sex couples, outside of the concept of marriage?”
That is basically the concept. It is a little different from marriage because it is worded in a way that it is either homosexually exclusive (as is the case with the former Time Warner company…my bf used to work for them and I learned about that) or it is worded in a way that you can give a roommate regardless of sex benefits from your work. The former idea where DP’s are homosexually exclusive is defended by the fact that straight people can marry anyone of the opposite gender that they please, rather easily; whereas, a homosexual couple is not afforded those same benefits. Companies see the discrepency and to remain competitive in the workplace, they afford the same benefits to same sex couples that their heterosexual couples get automatically. Personally, I don’t like DP’s or marriages as they now stand because neither is all encompassing and does not afford equal benefits to the parties involved. I would support a DP if it afforded all the same benefits as marriage including recongition within the country. My idea would be that it would just be what a homosexual couple would call marriage. I am not fussy about that detail (some people are).
HUGS!
Sqrl
Boomer, I had to rub my eyes a few times when I read this and the other post you put up, but I have to say, well done.
You asked:
First, allow me to point you to the “Domestic Partnerships” thread in Great Debates, where I just did a little research on some existing DP legislation in Philadelphia. I personally feel that DP’s are the next logical step to achieve equality.
Second, as has been said in other threads, yes, the benefits, both positive and negative, are an extremely important part of any marriage (and I quoted the General Accounting Office as having discovered 1,049 marital status-related legal benefits upon request of Congress). Get this equal treatment under the law is vitally important.
Third, and on the other hand, benefits are not the only point of a marriage - there is that whole love/family/commitment thing going on. Although DP’s are necessary and desperately wanted from a legal standpoint, there is an ethical problem - by not calling it a “marriage,” it sends a clear message that DP’s are second-class, not the “moral equivalent” of a “real marriage.”
So, do I think DP’s are acceptable? Yes. Do I think they will be the last word on the matter? No. My scenario is this: A state sets up a DP law equivalent to marriage; the Supreme Court will get a case and determine that “separate but equal” is unconstitutional (a la desegregation); DP’s then become marriages; the Supreme Court will get another case and find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional (as every constitutional expert I’ve heard says it is); all states with DoMA-like laws will have to discard them; same-sex marriages will then be legal. But it’s gonna take a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time, methinks.
On the one hand, this is a very impressive and enlightened statement; on the other, while you het folk clean up your own act, what harm does allowing same-sex couples the use of the word “marriage” cause to your opposite-sex marriage? This question has never been answered to my satisfaction.
Esprix
Sqrl makes a good point here, Boomer. DP laws on the books right now - company-sponsored, municipal, even the few state-wide - are, as they stand, not even close to being the true equal to the institution of marriage. They afford a very few, very specific benefits.
But it’s a start.
Esprix
I am bumping this thread up in the hopes that Asmodean will see and post some pearls of wisdom for us. (FYI, there are also threads on gay marriages, parenting, equal rights, and Christian viewpoints if you want to post something more specific.)
Esprix
you did that just for me? Ah well the only thing i can really say is i dont care at all. Im not homosexual and they dont seem to be opressing me so it doesent apply to me.
Hmmm, ok. You had a few things to say in the “Non-Judeo-Christian Views…” thread that would have better fit here, so I thought maybe this would pique your interest.
Never mind…
Esprix
well like i said on that other thread i dont care
Actually, you said:
So I was pointing you here (and other threads) to point out that it’s not a choice, and the current research into the topic. You brought it up, so I thought you might be interested. We also discussed “in your face” gay activism tactics as well.
Esprix