Dan Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 (edited) What are you expecting with marriage? Please don't start with the argument that everyone should have the right to get married, because it is not a valid argument. why is it an invalid argument? edit: i'm assuming you support everyone's (hetero) right to get married, as long as they're not violent people, right? so why should gays be excluded? care to give a reason/explanation for it? and don't start with "marriage started with christianity and christianity does not approve of homosexuality", cos we both know that's a load of BS. Edited January 6, 2004 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 (edited) Here you go: Civil Unions != Marriage. More here. Edited January 6, 2004 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 why is it an invalid argument? "Everyone should have" without a why is not a valide argument, everyone can start making claims by using this argument. The issue here is the why. Is it worth to have the marriage? Think about that Dan, what will marriage give you more than a civil union, if ever you decide to get married? This is what you should answer, all the rest of the pluses in the cases of marriage, all those things that may lack in civil unions are about "kids" which in this cases is a non-issue, and like I said if you decide for adoption, you will fill legal papers which will add up everything marriage would give more to you. Face it, the reason gays want marriage is because they feel it is more romantic, honeymoon and stuff etc... husband and husband, wife and wife... this is all, what prevent gays to build their own institutions for that? I mean, fight to be able to have the right to the distinction "husband" "wife" as for honeymoon, no one prevent you to have one, and if a church want to marry you, it can, and you will fill all those legal civil union papers... Again, like I said, what will it change to change all the conception of marriage and have all this problem of applicability because many churchs don't want to comply? Is it worth? What will be next? What about muslims, Jews, Hindus etc...? Do you see what I mean? You guys are not fighting for the same rights here, same rights is about the rights you guys have on paper, you are fighting for a word which won't give you anything more than trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Kill em all I say, escpessially the ones named Winston! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 (edited) first off, it's not necessarily a slippery slope.. it does not follow that everyone will now follow our example and demand rights, etc. that's a very low excuse for not giving someone their rights... besides, civil unions are not the same as marriages... and if gay people want to get married for romantic reasons, so be it... why prevent them? same rights is about the rights you guys have on paper, you are fighting for a word which won't give you anything more than trouble. read the article I posted above. and even if there were no difference between civil union and marriage, it's an issue of principle and being told what one cannot do in a country that claims to give its citizens basic human rights, including the right for marriage (limited to heteros).. double standards there? Edited January 6, 2004 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 I done care if they introduce 'civil unions' for gays/lesbians: just as long as they dont call it marriage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Accelerated, and why not, if i may ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Dan, if you have an argument to make, don't start editing your posts after I post my replies. That is not honest. As for the link you provided me, I already have read it, it contradict itself, it is not because civil union applicability is put to question, or that there is some things that it does not cover that it means that marriage is the only way to go. Civil union applicability could be modified, on the papers, it could be specified that they have as much rights as those married. The argument here does not justify what you propose. As for the protection stuff in term of international recognition, if you leave for an Islamic, Indu or other countries, even a marriage paper won't get you recognised, to the contrary it would be considered as worst and even blasphemious. Beside that, the link does not give any concreat and clear examples of difference between marriage and civil union, its central argument is that it is not well recognised, or that it is not well applicable etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Domino, I am editing my posts because i have so much to say and don't want to spam the board. i did not delete anything major in there, just added a coupla arguments. so are you telling me that fighting for marriage is not worth the trouble but fighting to change the definition and features of civil union is worth going through? why change civil union if you should have the right to marriage at any rate... ? civil unions do not give couples the same benefits as married couples, and i think that's very clear in that article as well as any article about this issue that you can find anywhere, including on Google.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Civil Unions vs. Marriage - Civil Union: -Currently available only in Vermont. -Couples receive c. 300 state rights, but none of the 1, 049 Federal rights, incl.;. immigration, social security spousal benefits, etc. -Not portable to other states. All benefits & legal protections lost if couple moves out of state. Marriage: -Available to opposite-sex couples in all 50 states. -Couples receives all state PLUS ALL Federal legal rights and responsibilities. -Portable throughout all 50 states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Dan, nothing is clear on the article in question, the article repeat and repeat both are different in term of applicability, in term of official recognition etc... first of all, those have nothing to do with what the civil union is about. The civil union on every civil forms has the same rights as marriage, and this article does not say anything proving the contrary, it just say it isen't the same, marriage give more rights, while on the same time the only real concreat evidences it provides are about applicability. If civil union is not universal, so as a gay marriage won't be universal, if you leave for a country which does not accept gay marriage, your marriage won't count. So this claim, which is one of the only real strong argument won't be any different in the cases of marriage. And still you keep repeating why Gays should not have the right to marry. Marriage has been invented for the union between a man and a woman. If you want to invent something for the union of man and man, woman and woman, go ahead. This is not about equality, this is about equivalence, marriage is not only about legal things, it has a cultural and religious signification in many cases. It is changing the definition of the word, man are man, we call them man, woman are woman, we call the woman. Will anyone start crying, will a man start asking for equality and be called a woman? Fight for the same rights, but marriage has nothing to do with the same rights, the prove is that here in Canada the gay organizations have made clear that they want it to be called marriage no matter what. No matter what means, that even if we were to provide the same exact rights, they'de refuse because they want it to be called marriage. This is plain stupid if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Civil Unions vs. Marriage - Civil Union: -Currently available only in Vermont. -Couples receive c. 300 state rights, but none of the 1, 049 Federal rights, incl.;. immigration, social security spousal benefits, etc. -Not portable to other states. All benefits & legal protections lost if couple moves out of state. Marriage: -Available to opposite-sex couples in all 50 states. -Couples receives all state PLUS ALL Federal legal rights and responsibilities. -Portable throughout all 50 states. Why don't you present the law proposition of civil union down here in Canada? Why are you selectivally choosing? federal rights are not included because it wasn't a federal juridiction, if it were it would cover the United states. So again, I will keep repeating... you have not provided any argument which will justify the word "marriage." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 that's the point, civil unions are recognised by states separately, and that's one of the disadvantages to it. Marriage has been invented for the union between a man and a woman. wrong again. marriage has existed long before christianity and definitions of heterosexuality even existed. do i really need to re-read the 40 page article i recently did a presentation on to give you examples of tribes that conducted gay marriage? the concept of marriage has been stolen by organised religions and appropriated to the set/system of beliefs of each religious organisation, but the history of marriage tells a lot about what marriage REALLY means... marriage is about commitment, not about gender. which would you prefer: a husband and wife in a hetero marriage who are totally unfaithful to one another or 2 gay men who are married and are committed to one another? No other answers - the first or the second? just as simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 the prove is that here in Canada the gay organizations have made clear that they want it to be called marriage no matter what. No matter what means, that even if we were to provide the same exact rights, they'de refuse because they want it to be called marriage. This is plain stupid if you ask me. lol, who said that? provide a link to the article, otherwise your point is null and void. and Domino, i am VERY critical of gay activists, and that's part of the reason why i put an end to my involvement in activism efforts in the gay community.. i admit they stretched it a bit too far, but i still support the basic idea behind equal marriage, and i'm not being "in anyone's face", just stating facts and arguing about something that courts around the country are unable to deny anymore. frankly, i don't think i care a bit about marriage.. i don't think i would get married to a man even if i had the right to.. but i want others to have the choice and equality... we don't want to be equal but separate.. we don't want to be treated differently.. we don't want to be segregated.. i am against segragation efforts from both sides, gay or straight -- i really despise the idea of the "gay school" in NY. i think it's terribly stupid... need i say more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 The bit about gay marriage not being valid in a country that doesn't recognize it is true. Just like with Muslim marriages, I'm sure - something a bit complicated there. I mean - what DOES happen when a Saudi Arab brings his four wives to the U.S. and gains citizenship? Hmmmmmmmm... The world has a long way to go. You're lucky if you can get something from your own country for now. Realistically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 I believe gay marriage is allowed here in Holland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKGIRL28 Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Anything is possible in Holland gurgen, that's what I admire about the country! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Like that`s something to admire UK jan!? I think it`s something very dangerous to people that do not have a strong personality! DAVO Yes we all need rules and religion to comfort and protect us...children that we all are...LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKGIRL28 Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Marriage or no marriage - at the end of the day, if two people want to be together (same sex) for whatever reason: be it love, commitment, children...ect, then its their choice! I dont see what all the fuss is about!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Marriage or no marriage - at the end of the day, if two people want to be together (same sex) for whatever reason: be it love, commitment, children...ect, then its their choice! I dont see what all the fuss is about!! Agreed. None of like being told what to do - how to think - who to be with - all of that...so where do we get off telling all of this to others. Live and let live...life is too short. And DAVO - sorry dude - but there is no going back. Our world and society are changing at a faster pace then ever before - and thats just the way of it. It would be nice if some folks had more foresight and might be able to guide along (to try t prevent or minimize real big problems) or even predict some of this change - but I guess its not the nature of things. So along with all of this - family and human relationships will change (not that we haven't had gay folks and same sex liasons etc throughout history - not really all that new)...but you can't live in the past... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Anything is possible in Holland gurgen, that's what I admire about the country! Anything? Try walking out and not to be called a Turk if you say you're from abroad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKGIRL28 Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 On a positive note I mean...there are certain factors which are acceptable in Holland like the coffee shops, same sex marriages, etc... that will never happen over here in this country! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 I have been to Holland several times. Though the country and its people are lovely, Amsterdam was a major disappointment. Since we won't be able to impose our values in any likelihood we shouldn't be so surprised when we are overwhelmed by those influences we have no control over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Yeah TOTH dude, but the problem is that people except every thing thast other nations and other cultures agree on but let`s not forget that we were one of the first nations and as I see we just fail all the time. We have so many good and pure values, why are those not excepted by othewr nations instead of letting us except theirs AND why don`t WE ARMENIANS keep this values alive! DAVO Homosexuality has nothing to do with culture other than its expression depending on culture permitting it. Your only objection can mean that people should not tolerate their and others' choices. Stick it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Davo, if you can't stand them or don't like them don't associate with them. It's not something they have chosen to be. No one has to like each other individually or as an entity. If we can't go for tolerance we can at least go for toleration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.