DominO123 Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 (edited) Yeah Domino - I mena why do blacks need to attend our (white) schools? They can have their own - yeah - thats the ticket...and they can cal them whatever they like..but they just can't ahve what we've got - no - no way - its just for us.... Thoth, school by principle and statut is recognised as a place for education. Blacks as humans having somewhere where they study will be called a school. Marriage on the other hand is not only a thing where you unite(this is why civil unions are called civil unions, marriage is a civil union as well)... it has all the cultural, religious etc... stuff that is attached to it... if we were to follow your anarchist view, "union" plain and simple should be allowed without a cultural etc... bases... that would mean that a child could marry with an adult, a brother and a sister, a mother and his son etc... A civil union is meant to be a system by which two people could unite without having to respect the established body that is called a marriage. Edited January 8, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Domino - thats all fine and dandy - and i don't really give a rats ass per say - in regards to the religiosu aspects - but the legal aspects - thats different. And first of all - we are talking two consenting adults here. They have decided to live as one together - to love and cherish and all that stuff...well this to me is marraige - this is what it is all about - religious mumbo jumbo aside...so if it is a marraige then lets call it such - and certianly the legal ramifications should be identical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Domino - thats all fine and dandy - and i don't really give a rats ass per say - in regards to the religiosu aspects - but the legal aspects - thats different. And first of all - we are talking two consenting adults here. They have decided to live as one together - to love and cherish and all that stuff...well this to me is marraige - this is what it is all about - religious mumbo jumbo aside...so if it is a marraige then lets call it such - and certianly the legal ramifications should be identical. Do you support the marriage between an adult man and his mother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Domino, more or less my point, although I am more into "why bother, are you crazy?" whereas you are saying there must be something that pleases everyone, so no need to get stuck on the word and concept of "marriage" - somewhat the reason why I've been wondering "out loud" about "complex marriage" and such. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Also, Thoth, are you for recognizing all four women of a Saudi Arab as his legal wives and supporting all four getting American citizenships when the man is naturalized? How does that work in the U.S.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Domino, more or less my point, although I am more into "why bother, are you crazy?" whereas you are saying there must be something that pleases everyone, so no need to get stuck on the word and concept of "marriage" - somewhat the reason why I've been wondering "out loud" about "complex marriage" and such. Oh well. Exactly, my goal is to please everyone... give the gays their rights, and churchs that would want to give their benedictions could do it volonary. They could even build their Gay union churchs etc... they will offense less people, and we will maximize the happiness... I mean, finding a way to make both party happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Do you support the marriage between an adult man and his mother? Yes - I supose...as certainly I know of such in practice...so why not...again - I do not oppose such for two consenting adults...i can't decide for them..sure its odd - it is tome..but it might be jst the thing for someone else - who knows... And Stormy - yes i would also support the concept of th Saudi being married to his wives as I fully support the concepts of plogamy and such - even with a gal haveing many husbands...of course our legal framework sdoesn't support such - and for it to change there must be some imputis - some demand...lacking that it won't happen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Yes - I supose...as certainly I know of such in practice...so why not...again - I do not oppose such for two consenting adults...i can't decide for them..sure its odd - it is tome..but it might be jst the thing for someone else - who knows... And Stormy - yes i would also support the concept of th Saudi being married to his wives as I fully support the concepts of plogamy and such - even with a gal haveing many husbands...of course our legal framework sdoesn't support such - and for it to change there must be some imputis - some demand...lacking that it won't happen... Do you support the existance of governments? The existance of orders, laws? I think you are more anarchist than atheist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 (edited) I'm not even gonna attempt to reply to gevo's post....... "Same Sex Marriage" is wrong to be openly discussed in "Armenian Forum". yeah? and genital cleanliness is allowed to be talked about in an Armenian forum? double standards there...? i hate to break it to you, but you are a hypocrite. But I will not let them get married in Armenia, in Armenian Church. believe it or not, in about 10 years, you will not be able to do anything about/against it. It's sad to see that Armenians these days are not open to change and social development....... and Armenia was the first nation to embrace change in the form of religion....... tell ya what, if you're so deeply rooted in your so called Armenian traditions that must be defended and kept at all cost, go live in whatever they lived in 1500 years ago........ eh? and i am not against preserving the history of our traditions... but cultures develop/undergo changes, not necessarily having to abandon their past or even their rites... it's sad to see so many hypocrites (i call them BS-ers) on a crusade in the name of Armenian traditions... i will refrain from talking further, as I'm afraid I will say wrong/bad things.... Lookie here kids, whether you like it or not, gay marriage is gonna be legalised in most countries/states pretty soon, so if you don't like it, go live in Saudi Arabia where your head/other parts (won't go into detail) are cut off if you openly do things like that. Try to live there and if you stay alive, come back and tell me what it was like.. k? now stop blindly advocating non-open-mindedness when you haven't lived in a country that is not open-minded. i have. so i say, deal with it, or leave! too many people (men) before you were opposed to women getting their rights... and well, believe it or not, they couldn't do anything/much about it except stop b****ing about it. Edited January 8, 2004 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 and what is specifically wrong with being the "sex, drugs" kinda guy, hmm? and please, i think you are "ters"... mmhmmm... sexual liberation did not come until very recently, so I don't think it's "old-fashioned," and even if it is, as long as it's open-minded, who gives a hell about it's old-fashionedness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 And what Armenian traditions are you talking about -- is axchig pakhtsenel part of your so-called Armenian traditions? i suppose that's better than homosexuality/gay marriage? ..... look here for more: http://64.21.83.54/forum/index.php?showtop...=20entry76319 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 (edited) i have. so i say, deal with it, or leave! too many people (men) before you were opposed to women getting their rights... and well, believe it or not, they couldn't do anything/much about it except stop b****ing about it. Comparing apples with oranges here. Not giving the gays the same rights as heteros is a discrimination, not giving the womens the same rights as men is a discrimination. But marriage is a word with given symbolism is cultures and religions around the world, I fail to see how it could be compared with the right of women? Gays can have the same rights without the word marriage being implamented, while women rights is about "rights." Marriage is not about rights, you can give gays the same rights without the word. Edited January 9, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 it's the same thing, Domino. both were oppressed groups and both had a fight for freedom/liberation... at one point, women had no right to make their own choices with regards to marriage, etc., or in more open-minded societies it was a taboo, now it's something normal in most societies. they are comparable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 the word is the right. if straight people have a right to it, so should gay people, under the law of the state (government, that is). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 or even a better example: interracial marriage... at one point, churches refused to conduct interracial marriage, even if both were of the same religion and church... it wasn't until some 20-30 years ago that this "ban" was lifted.... do you disagree with interracial marriage? i think there's even more involved in that than in gay marriage, cultural differences, etc..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 it's the same thing, Domino. both were oppressed groups and both had a fight for freedom/liberation... at one point, women had no right to make their own choices with regards to marriage, etc., or in more open-minded societies it was a taboo, now it's something normal in most societies. they are comparable... Dan, you are twisting things here. I am not denying gays were oppressed and that they may still be oppressed. I am not discussing about rights here, I am all for giving gays equal rights, as citizens they should have all the rights... but marriage is not about a right, marriage is a term used to mean the union between a man and a woman... I am all for the union of gay... this union should provide them all the rights of a married couple, I am still unsure if I am for the adoption permission here... because studies of the influence of the child developpement in a gay family is still lacking. So again, this is not about rights but rather a cultural term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 the word is the right. if straight people have a right to it, so should gay people, under the law of the state (government, that is). So from your logic, if a man want to call himself a woman he should have the right... same rights? No? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 or even a better example: interracial marriage... at one point, churches refused to conduct interracial marriage, even if both were of the same religion and church... it wasn't until some 20-30 years ago that this "ban" was lifted.... do you disagree with interracial marriage? i think there's even more involved in that than in gay marriage, cultural differences, etc..... A marriage is considered as an union between a man and a woman... a black woman is a woman, a white man is a man... therefore the union between those two will be a marriage... again your example has nothing to do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 marriage is about a right... when a government bans gay marriage even though there are churches who would gladly conduct/bless gay marriages, it's a clear indication that it's a violation of citizens' rights.. marriage is about commitment, not about gender. Studies about gay parenting have indicated that there are no problems with the children. That is why gay couples have the right to adopt... when you say that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, you remind me of mr. bush... not a very pleasant person to be compared to, right? A nice way to put it would be the following: As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a civil commitment between people who are making a public pledge of love for each other, and are stating a commitment to be with each other forever, and that their relationship should be considered in factors like, for instance, rights to visit the other in hospital, spousal privilege (the right to not have to testify against a married partner, set up because it was felt the state had no business driving a wedge between married couples) in court cases, and others. The state has no business picking and choosing what is and what is not a valid marriage (unless they're going to start interrogating heterosexuals too and doing it on the basis of who is and isn't commited to each other, rather than just which attatchments they have). So whatever the hell the Catholic church thinks about gays is their own problem, and whatever the hell you think about gay marriage is your own problem, but by law, I should be allowed to get married, simply because religion and government are separate and the government should have no say on what one can do with regards to things like religious marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 So from your logic, if a man want to call himself a woman he should have the right... same rights? No? i didn't say anything like that. i don't know where you brought that from, but i do believe that no matter what one's gender/sexual identity, they should be allowed to get married to whoever the hell they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 A marriage is considered as an union between a man and a woman... a black woman is a woman, a white man is a man... therefore the union between those two will be a marriage... again your example has nothing to do... you're missing the point.. i am not referring to who has what genitals. i am referring to the fact that interracial marriage was illegal not a long time ago, and even considered highly immoral... now it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Domino, do tell me how gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage and its so called deeply rooted cultural background and history? I cannot grasp that concept.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armo77 Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Nothing against Gays.. But untill a man can bear a child in his booty, then I would consider it "Natural". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 marriage is about a right... when a government bans gay marriage even though there are churches who would gladly conduct/bless gay marriages, it's a clear indication that it's a violation of citizens' rights.. marriage is about commitment, not about gender. Studies about gay parenting have indicated that there are no problems with the children. That is why gay couples have the right to adopt... when you say that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, you remind me of mr. bush... not a very pleasant person to be compared to, right? A nice way to put it would be the following: So whatever the hell the Catholic church thinks about gays is their own problem, and whatever the hell you think about gay marriage is your own problem, but by law, I should be allowed to get married, simply because religion and government are separate and the government should have no say on what one can do with regards to things like religious marriage. Oh my my, we are back to square one, I am starting to believe that you are doing it on purpouses. I WILL TELL YOU THIS FOR THE LAST TIME!!! I HAVE NO PROBLEM ABOUT IF A CHURCH BLESS A GAY UNION OR CALL IT A MARRIAGE. I am ALL for EQUALITY!!! If a government bans it even if a church want to do it, it is against equality. WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT IS ABOUT THE OFFICIAL PAPERS... it is not of the interest of gay couples that their union be called a marriage... it is confusing... As for the studies you are talking about, please show me any studies. Look dude, I have no problem being compared with anyone or anything... I don't give a rat @#$ I have enought of your repetition, while you talk about rights, I talk about a word, and I have to keep repeating and repeating that I am all for giving gays the same rights, while you still answer me about how gays are not given more rights. And a last note, I have not claimed you said it, I said that if your logic was to be applied it would equal as that. I want to have all the rights women have, I want to be called a woman... I don't have the right? Why? Tell me why I don't have the right!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Basic Benefits [of Marriage] - Bpston Globe 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 citizenship. 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. And another list of benefits 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 So why stubbornly insist on denying us what really is our right by law in the first place when it's all about a word you're arguing about? 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.