11 of 11 US states vote against gay marriage

[Zmid]

Just want to reiterate MY point. I'm not opposed to homosexual couples having the same legal rights as any man/woman marriage irrespective of current laws. I believe that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman. I believe a man-on-man union or a woman-on-woman union can be called something different from marriage without homoesexuals feeling the need to say "I'm discriminated against".

 

Except by denying them marriage, you are discriminating against them. YOU may not see a difference between a 'civil union' or a 'garriage', or whatever else you want to call it and 'marriage', but it may very well make a difference to them. 'Marriage' has meant an intimate and deep union between two people for hundreds, if not thousands of years, so by denying them this, you are saying that they are not good enough and not worthy of it, and are therefore less than 'straight' couples.

 

Where as a black man, hispanic man, black woman, hispanic woman are still classed as "man" and "woman"..."man" and "man" is not "man" and "woman".

 

In layman's terms:

Black woman + Black man = Woman and man

Hispanic woman + hispanic man = Woman and man

 

Black man + Black man = Man and man

 

I fail to see where the argument is the same.

 

I think the argument Peregrine is making is that if you basically replace 'black' or 'interracial' in these arguments with 'homosexual', these are exactly the same arguments being used against homosexual marriages.

[Dark0ne]

Except by denying them marriage, you are discriminating against them.

 

And by denying an 18 year old male in America the ability to legally purchase alcohol, you're also discriminating against him...

 

...

 

...

 

There's many a law out there that discriminate against classes, sexs, ages etc. - I don't see why this one is so different...except people are willing to compromise on this issue. Most (I presume?) aren't saying "no, homosexuals should not be allowed legally-binding unions", instead people are saying they can have the legal union but it can't be marriage, since its definition is man/woman.

 

I mean..I look at how much effort people make trying to be politically correct. Someone told me I can't call people "black"..but instead "coloured"...I told them to piss off. I look at the MOBO awards (Music of Black Origin) and wonder why there aren't MOWO awards. One of my homosexual friends currently at university tried to tell me that the way I was doing it (in regards to me feeling sexually attracted to women) was "naturally wrong" and "sickening"...are people deluding themselves because we've tried to become so politically correct?

 

'Marriage' has meant an intimate and deep union between two people for hundreds, if not thousands of years...

 

And I'm sure "civil-union" or "garriage" will have the same meaning to homosexuals as marriage does hetros.

 

so by denying them this, you are saying that they are not good enough and not worthy of it, and are therefore less than 'straight' couples.

 

Thats called putting words in someone's mouth. Not the best of things to do in a debate.

[Peregrine]

Just want to reiterate MY point. I'm not opposed to homosexual couples having the same legal rights as any man/woman marriage irrespective of current laws. I believe that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman. I believe a man-on-man union or a woman-on-woman union can be called something different from marriage without homoesexuals feeling the need to say "I'm discriminated against".

 

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. Separate but equal is not equal, and is not allowed.

 

And by denying an 18 year old male in America the ability to legally purchase alcohol, you're also discriminating against him...

 

You're right, an 18 year old should have full rights as an adult. The fact that the government is wrong in one case does not excuse their mistakes elsewhere.

 

There's many a law out there that discriminate against classes, sexs, ages etc. - I don't see why this one is so different...except people are willing to compromise on this issue. Most (I presume?) aren't saying "no, homosexuals should not be allowed legally-binding unions", instead people are saying they can have the legal union but it can't be marriage, since its definition is man/woman.

 

No, people are saying they can't have legal benefits of any kind. Pay more attention to news here before you make your arguments.

 

And as for those laws, who said they were right? The fact that the government is wrong in one case does not excuse their mistakes elsewhere.

I mean..I look at how much effort people make trying to be politically correct. Someone told me I can't call people "black"..but instead "coloured"...I told them to piss off. I look at the MOBO awards (Music of Black Origin) and wonder why there aren't MOWO awards. One of my homosexual friends currently at university tried to tell me that the way I was doing it (in regards to me feeling sexually attracted to women) was "naturally wrong" and "sickening"...are people deluding themselves because we've tried to become so politically correct?

 

Uh, what's your point? If anything, this argument should make you opposed to giving an alternate title just to avoid offending people.

 

And I suggest you stop saying things when you have no idea what you're talking about. For many of them, attraction to the opposite sex is just as "wrong" and "sickening" as you would find the thought of being attracted to another man.

 

 

And as for the race argument, you still miss the point. Take all the one man, one woman arguments you're seeing here and replace all the gender/sexuality related terms with race related ones. Now you've got the exact same arguments, used by many of the same people, as were used to oppose interracial marriage.

 

By using those same arguments, you're proving yourself to be no better than the racists.

 

 

 

 

I'll finish with this question for you:

 

If, as in the US, you had a choice between allowing homosexual marriage (with the name "marriage"), or banning all forms of legal recognition, what do you choose?

[Dark0ne]

And as for the race argument, you still miss the point. Take all the one man, one woman arguments you're seeing here and replace all the gender/sexuality related terms with race related ones. Now you've got the exact same arguments, used by many of the same people, as were used to oppose interracial marriage.

 

By using those same arguments, you're proving yourself to be no better than the racists.

 

No..you're missing the point I'm afraid. Race has no bearing on a words definition which does not encompass race. I'm not arguing against interracial marriages, and just because the same argument was used against it doesn't mean the point is not valid for homosexual unions.

 

If you want to start changing words arounds in arguments and completely changing its format...do you agree "Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who possess American citizenship should be allowed to murder and destrory innocent civilians and public buildings because its their freedom to do so"? Where does freedom end?

 

Land of the free, whoever told you that is your enemy. Ring a bell?

 

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. Separate but equal is not equal, and is not allowed.

 

The fact that the government is wrong

 

Sort of contradicting yourself here, aren't you. I think the Supreme Court is wrong, as do millions of others. But no, it must be right because the Supreme Court says so? You wouldn't accept that if I turned it on you in an argument - got to do better.

 

No, people are saying they can't have legal benefits of any kind. Pay more attention to news here before you make your arguments.

 

I was in America last February when gay marriage was legalised in San Francisco. I stayed with extremely pro-Bush, pro-Christian ethics, higher class friends living in Boston who had the same argument as myself (although their children, aged 30, 26 and 24 couldn't understand the argument).

 

Once again you seem to be stretching your comments beyond the truth, but not completely outside of it. Some people say they shouldn't be given rights. Not everyone. And don't quote me FOX News statistics..PoS Murdock.

 

Uh, what's your point? If anything, this argument should make you opposed to giving an alternate title just to avoid offending people.

 

My point was that we spend so much time trying not to offend people that we end up doing exactly what was set out not to do - segregate people.

 

And I suggest you stop saying things when you have no idea what you're talking about. For many of them, attraction to the opposite sex is just as "wrong" and "sickening" as you would find the thought of being attracted to another man.

 

*stoops low* - and you'd know about homosexuality....

 

I'll save the "I've got a homosexual friend and he says this and this and that" speech.

 

If, as in the US, you had a choice between allowing homosexual marriage (with the name "marriage"), or banning all forms of legal recognition, what do you choose?

 

Once again your statement has no relevence since those aren't the choices available. I choose homosexuals have civil union, hetrosexuals have marriage.

 

 

----

 

At the end of the day, some homosexuals are fighting for a word that will stop them from feeling discriminated against in their union. Why aren't people, then, fighting for homosexuals to be called hetrosexuals like the vast majority out there? If it bothers them that their union will have a different name, why doesn't it bother them that they are classed as different -- as homosexuals?

 

They're already classed as different by definition, why stop the difference at marriage?

[Zmid]

Except by denying them marriage, you are discriminating against them.

 

And by denying an 18 year old male in America the ability to legally purchase alcohol, you're also discriminating against him...

 

Except, rightly or wrongly, that is in place in order to protect them. (In my opinion, anyone who's 18 is old enough to make their own decisions and protect themselves, but that's a whole different debate). How, exactly, are you protecting homosexuals by denying them marriage?

 

There's many a law out there that discriminate against classes, sexs, ages etc. - I don't see why this one is so different...except people are willing to compromise on this issue. Most (I presume?) aren't saying "no, homosexuals should not be allowed legally-binding unions"

 

Except quite a few folk are saying exactly that - gay people should not be allowed the same legal benefits from joining together in marriage, or any hypothetical equivalent, as straight people.

 

instead people are saying they can have the legal union but it can't be marriage, since its definition is man/woman.

 

Yes, the current legal definition is man/woman, but that is a hold-over from the days when being gay was illegal and seen as disgusting and perverted by the vast majority of society and especially by those in power at the time.

 

I mean..I look at how much effort people make trying to be politically correct. Someone told me I can't call people "black"..but instead "coloured"...I told them to piss off. I look at the MOBO awards (Music of Black Origin) and wonder why there aren't MOWO awards. One of my homosexual friends currently at university tried to tell me that the way I was doing it (in regards to me feeling sexually attracted to women) was "naturally wrong" and "sickening

 

I think that trying to be politically correct in what you say is pointless, because it's the intentions, not the words, that matter. In what you do, and in the laws applicable in your country, that's different, because, even if they are intended in the best possible way, they still have a direct effect on the people concerned.

 

(On a side note, as to your question 'why is there no MOWO awards', it's because no-one has held them. If a person or organisation feels like it, there is absolutely nothing to stop them starting MOWO awards.)

 

"...are people deluding themselves because we've tried to become so politically correct?

 

No. Not in this issue. To me, it's a very simple question of 'should homosexuals have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals?' I cannot think of any good reason for the answer to be 'no'.

 

'Marriage' has meant an intimate and deep union between two people for hundreds, if not thousands of years...

And I'm sure "civil-union" or "garriage" will have the same meaning to homosexuals as marriage does hetros.

 

You're making the assumption that just because you see no difference, they won't either. This may not be the case as the term 'marriage' has hundreds or thousands of years of history, tradition and emotion behind it, whereas 'civil union' is a legalistic, dry, emotionless description of the union, and 'garriage', or any other term, could very well be seen as something that is made up as an attempt to fob them off with something less than marriage.

 

so by denying them this, you are saying that they are not good enough and not worthy of it, and are therefore less than 'straight' couples.

Thats called putting words in someone's mouth. Not the best of things to do in a debate.

 

Give me another reason for denying homosexuals marriage, then. The only reason you have given is 'the definition of marriage is man/woman', but this whole debate is about the answer to the question 'should it be?'

 

No..you're missing the point I'm afraid. Race has no bearing on a words definition which does not encompass race. I'm not arguing against interracial marriages, and just because the same argument was used against it doesn't mean the point is not valid for homosexual unions.

 

The point being made was that discrimination against interracial marriages was wrong as blacks and whites are both equal. This is also true of homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is the same arguments being used and a very similar situation. What's the difference?

 

If you want to start changing words arounds in arguments and completely changing its format...do you agree "Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who possess American citizenship should be allowed to murder and destrory innocent civilians and public buildings because its their freedom to do so"?

 

No, because anyone who is NOT a member of any terrorist group is also not free to do this. Heterosexuals are free to marry. Homosexuals are not.

[Abramul]

No, because anyone who is NOT a member of any terrorist group is also not free to do this.

Yes, they ARE free to do so, however there are consequences for excercising that freedom.

If civil unions are acceptable for so many straight people, why shouldn't homosexuals be satisfied with that? Are there any churches that would hold a same-sex marriage ceremony?

[Zmid]

No, because anyone who is NOT a member of any terrorist group is also not free to do this.

Yes, they ARE free to do so

 

Not legally they're not.

 

however there are consequences for excercising that freedom.

If civil unions are acceptable for so many straight people, why shouldn't homosexuals be satisfied with that?

 

Because straight people have the choice of a 'civil union' or a marriage. Homosexual people currently don't, and still wouldn't under this idea.

 

Are there any churches that would hold a same-sex marriage ceremony?

 

Don't know, have you asked any?

 

Also, who says homosexual couples would have to be married in a church? Many straight couples aren't.

[Peregrine]

No..you're missing the point I'm afraid. Race has no bearing on a words definition which does not encompass race. I'm not arguing against interracial marriages, and just because the same argument was used against it doesn't mean the point is not valid for homosexual unions.

 

As I said, you're no better than the racists whose arguments you're borrowing. The only difference is what characteristic you're using to define the "lesser" class of people. It's still entirely wrong both legally and morally, for the exact same reasons.

If you want to start changing words arounds in arguments and completely changing its format...do you agree "Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who possess American citizenship should be allowed to murder and destrory innocent civilians and public buildings because its their freedom to do so"? Where does freedom end?

 

Where do you get the idea anyone has that "right"? In your example here, all you're proving is that murder and destruction of property are not "rights".

 

In the arguments against both homosexual marriage, marriage is allowed for some people. The "right" exists, but you (and they) just want to limit it to those people who you decide are worthy of it.

Sort of contradicting yourself here, aren't you. I think the Supreme Court is wrong, as do millions of others. But no, it must be right because the Supreme Court says so? You wouldn't accept that if I turned it on you in an argument - got to do better.

 

Of course it's right because the Supreme Court says so. It's their job to know these things, and they are the final decision on the constitutionality of any law in this country. It doesn't matter how popular or unpopular that law is, if it isn't constitutional, it isn't going to survive the challenge.

 

The only reason the homosexual marriage bans were allowed to pass is they haven't been challenged in court yet. Perhaps you should research how our legal system works before you try to argue it?

I was in America last February when gay marriage was legalised in San Francisco. I stayed with extremely pro-Bush, pro-Christian ethics, higher class friends living in Boston who had the same argument as myself (although their children, aged 30, 26 and 24 couldn't understand the argument).

 

Once again you seem to be stretching your comments beyond the truth, but not completely outside of it. Some people say they shouldn't be given rights. Not everyone. And don't quote me FOX News statistics..PoS Murdock.

 

What's your point? Read the statement you were replying to:

No, people are saying they can't have legal benefits of any kind. Pay more attention to news here before you make your arguments.

 

Voters in 11 states just did exactly what I said, in most of them by huge majorities. If you think my statement is stretching the truth, you're obviously don't know enough about events in this country to be debating in this thread.

 

My point was that we spend so much time trying not to offend people that we end up doing exactly what was set out not to do - segregate people.

 

Exactly, so we shouldn't worry about offending anyone.

 

Therefore the argument that "calling it marriage would offend people" is not valid. Thank you for conceding the point.

 

*stoops low* - and you'd know about homosexuality....

 

I'll save the "I've got a homosexual friend and he says this and this and that" speech.

 

Of course, I don't know anything about it. Everything my friends (who know firsthand exactly how it works) have told me is a lie. How could I possibly have gone so long with these delusions?

 

 

Oh wait, you're just wrong.

 

Once again your statement has no relevence since those aren't the choices available. I choose homosexuals have civil union, hetrosexuals have marriage.

 

Thank you for once again proving your complete ignorance of the subject you're trying to debate. Those two options ARE the only choices available here. The bans in those 11 states and the proposed national ammendment are COMPLETE bans of anything even close to marriage.

 

 

At the end of the day, some homosexuals are fighting for a word that will stop them from feeling discriminated against in their union. Why aren't people, then, fighting for homosexuals to be called hetrosexuals like the vast majority out there? If it bothers them that their union will have a different name, why doesn't it bother them that they are classed as different -- as homosexuals?

 

They're already classed as different by definition, why stop the difference at marriage?

 

At the end of the day, some black people are fighting for a word that will stop them from feeling discriminated against in their union. Why aren't people, then, fighting for black people to be called white like the vast majority out there? If it bothers them that their union will have a different name, why doesn't it bother them that they are classed as different -- as black people?

 

They're already classed as different by definition, why stop the difference at marriage?

 

Yes, why don't we give them an entirely separate form of "marriage". They're already different from the superior white race, so why should they be allowed to have the same rights?

 

 

I hope you see just how disgustingly immoral your argument is. You're no different than all the racists out there, except in your choice of "inferior class".

 

 

 

 

 

 

============================================

If civil unions are acceptable for so many straight people, why shouldn't homosexuals be satisfied with that?

 

Thank you for proving your ignorance of the subject. Every legal union between a man and a woman, no matter if it's done in church or by signing paperwork in a government office, is callled MARRIAGE. NOT a civil union.

 

A "civil union" is clearly a lesser form of "marriage".

 

Are there any churches that would hold a same-sex marriage ceremony?

 

Yes, there are, but what does that have to do with anything? You don't need a church ceremony to be considered married.

[Abramul]

Civil Union-Wikipedia

A civil union is one of several terms for a civil status similar to marriage, typically created for the purposes of allowing homosexual couples access to the benefits enjoyed by married heterosexuals (see also same-sex marriage); it can also be used by couples of differing sexes who do not prefer to enter into the legal institution of marriage (perhaps out of solidarity with those who fight for equality) but who would rather be in a union more similar to a common-law marriage.

 

Many different types of civil unions exist. Some are identical to marriage in nearly every respect except name; some have many but not all of the rights accorded to married couples; some are simple registries (also called domestic partnerships.)

 

Some jurisdictions that have passed civil unions include Vermont in the United States (2000); Quebec and Nova Scotia in Canada; and France, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), Iceland (1996), Finland (2000), Germany (2001), and Switzerland (2002).

 

In 2001, the Netherlands gave same-sex marriage equal status with opposite-sex marriage, in addition to its 1998 "registered partnership" law (civil union) for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Belgium did likewise in 2003, as did the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, Canada, following court rulings in 2003 and 2004. A bill has been drafted to extend that right throughout Canada. Gay marriage is also legal in the US state of Massachusetts. See same-sex marriage.

 

A much larger number of jurisdictions, largely individual municipalities and counties, have passed rules to register same-sex unions; for information on this, see domestic partnership.

Posting the full text, except for the header (Civil Union) and a chart on the side.

 

On a lighter note,

Of course, I don't know anything about it. Everything my friends (who know firsthand exactly how it works) have told me is a lie. How could I possibly have gone so long with these delusions?

 

 

Oh wait, you're just wrong.

 

Nice. B)

[Malchik]

Although the issue of this debate is narrowly defined, there is a much more fundamental disagreement behind it - the principle of 'rights'.

 

IMO, whether or not there should be 'rights' is irrelevant, the fact is that there are NO rights. What we describe as 'rights' are those things that our society considers should be 'right' at this moment in time. In other words they are 'permissions' not 'rights'.

 

Now, society is not one homogenous lump and not everyone necessarily agrees that the 'permissions' are correct.

 

We say, and I do believe that despite differences of opinion most of the forum members will agree, that homosexuals should not be discriminated against. But not everyone does agree with that, in particular those of certain religious persuasions.

 

Should it appear that the number of people in favour of discrimination exceeds the number against it then logically society will remove the 'permission' for homosexuals to have equal treatment. And even if I hear cries of horror, there is nothing to stop this happening. You don't have to go very far back in US history to see flagrant examples of it. And there are many who would reverse some of the more liberal laws if they could. And even currently in the US since the events of 9/11, see how believers in Islam and those who look middle eastern are being treated. (In reality, not by the law.)

 

An even more vexed question in the US is the extent to which the elected government actually reflects the wishes of the common people. It is the government who grant 'permissions'. There is unease amongst many of my more liberal US friends and family that Bush may believe he has carte blanche to implement his agenda when in fact his mandate is only half of the electorate.

 

I believe everyone should be treated in the same way. Unions, of whatever kind, should be accorded the same legal protection and permissions. If there are different terms let them be between 'civil union' and 'church union'. Informally, not enshrined in law, let people use 'marrage' as they choose. After all, in Nevada you can get married to someone you've just met and divorced as quickly. Yet this flagrantly irreligious behaviour does not bring howls of condemnation for the use of the term 'marriage'.

 

Forget the WORD, concentrate on the 'permissions' or, for those who don't agree with my thesis, the 'rights'. The words will ultimately take care of themselves.