C
cherokeemist
Guest
Yeah, funny how that fits in to the nazification of Amerika.
Pastor: Trap Gays, Lesbians Inside Electric Fence
- Thread starter engagedinattempting
- Start date
NewOrleans
Jedi Master
The issue isn't really "Gay marriage" but freedom of expression. That preacher? He's just answering the "dog whistle" of the growing national trend towards overt fascism.
The truth be told, even some intelligent gay people are not interested in this gay marriage "issue". I don't want to marry my boyfriend. Why are so many straights so interested anyway? It's not like modern day heterosexual marriage has been a paragon of virtue. No, it's minor stupid stuff, compared to the surveillance culture that is building up all around us day by day. We don't need actual fences when people's minds already have one inside.
The truth be told, even some intelligent gay people are not interested in this gay marriage "issue". I don't want to marry my boyfriend. Why are so many straights so interested anyway? It's not like modern day heterosexual marriage has been a paragon of virtue. No, it's minor stupid stuff, compared to the surveillance culture that is building up all around us day by day. We don't need actual fences when people's minds already have one inside.
Mountain Crown
The Living Force
According to some of my friends who are gay couples, one of the main issues regarding a legal marriage status is the availability for insurance coverage or other job perks for the partner who may not be employed.
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
Jerry said:
And tax benefits, and child custody, and health care decisions if one partner becomes ill, and immigration status, and inheritance law, and so on and so on - basically all the rights that heterosexual couples don't even think about because it's 'normal' to have them.
Mountain Crown
The Living Force
anart said:
Yes, and depriving them of these things is unconscionable.
Forget about the ridiculous religious claims for the inequity, there aren’t any reasons for it imo.
Atrocious. Not that some psycho views the world this way, but that "people" like this actually have followers.
I too do not think "him" worthy of being shot into space.. I can only hope "he" finds himself in an electrically fenced off environment down the road..
not that the Shocks would do any good. When you're that insane.. I really don't see any possibility for understanding anything at all.
NewOrleans
Jedi Master
anart said:
Yes, of course. Thoughtless of me to forget these things. Probably because I have nothing and expect nothing from the gov. But for others fighting to gain rights, I'm for it. No one should have 50% rights because of sexual orientation or the gender of their beloved.
Silveryblue
Jedi
NewOrleans said:
OK I am not a lawyer so don't thrash me. I am wary of the concepts of rights, entitlements and perks other than the basic freedoms and rights of humanity. "It is my right" and "I am entitled" usually means " I expect someone to give me something"
It seems to me that the original premise of spousal entitlements etc is anticipated dependency. Wives & children back in the old days were deemed to be dependent on the breadwinner to survive. Therefore the law makes provision for the dependants to have protection of some sort in the event that the main breadwinner is out of action for some reason and has not made other arrangements for the care and protection of their dependants.
The concept is very dated given that most families have not been in the single earner mode of gracious living for decades.
Now the question: If you are not dependant, should you have "rights" just because someone else has them for default/historic reasons? Can't you just achieve the same outcome by ordering your affairs legally?
I am single and expect that I can delegate my inheritance, medical decisions, child custody etc to my chosen person by normal legal means rather than expecting the state to confer them via tradition.
Not so sure about the immigration status thing as I have never had to consider this. Tax benefits are also outside of my knowledge area.
Quite willing to be educated. Be gentle. :/
Mountain Crown
The Living Force
Aren't there many heterosexual couples without dependents who have these "rights?"
truth seeker
The Living Force
Why should some human beings have privileges while others don't?Silveryblue said:
Silveryblue
Jedi
I think that lawmakers moves very slowly to address these issues in response to fairly rapidly changing society. It is only relatively recently that defacto partners (heterosexual or homosexual) have been provided rights under property law - at least in my country.truth seeker said:
http://www.thelawyers.co.nz/uploaded_images/Guides/De-Facto-Property-Rights---1211.pdf
I am not saying that some should have privileges that others don't. I just made the point that it takes a while for the PTB to catch up and in the meantime you can arrange your own affairs using existing laws.
truth seeker
The Living Force
It's not that the ptb take a while to 'catch up', but rather that the ptb purposely drags it feet in order to keep the masses distracted and infighting with issues that could quite easily and quickly be rectified. Believe me, when they want a law passed, it gets passed.Silveryblue said:
People of color in this country experienced similar tactics and still do albeit to a lesser extent. Unfortunately many who have certain privileges because they happen to fit in the correct box, so to speak, are often led to believe what you've written above. I've never really understood that particular argument - that some should patiently wait their turn, even if it takes decades or centuries, while others get to enjoy certain freedoms in the present. For what it's worth.
truth seeker said:
indeed. when it is convenient to an agenda, laws are passed in a matter of days. see last year's rush to pass laws that completely undermine freedom, and can be used to target anyone for no reason at all. it's not so much that legislature is lagging behind "society's change", as much as some issues are dangled behind on long chains, while others are quickly taken care of and fit into the law. it's a matter of defining what reality is for people, what is allowed and what isn't, when it is convenient to make amendments they are made, but only insomuch as they define reality for people in a slightly different way which compliments agendas.
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
At least part of the problem getting "Gay Marriage" laws passed in some states is directly due to some leaders in the GLBT orgs being VERY stubborn over one word, "Marriage"
"Marriage" is often seen as a religious term (even though it's not, it's contractual) particularly in the south, and a large chunk of the Christian population perceives "Gay Marriage" as an assault on their religious beliefs. However, many of these same people have no objection to "Domestic Partnership" laws which confer the exact some rights and privileges as "Marriage"
There are MANY Christians who will rally against "Gay Marriage" but they just don't get worked up over "Domestic Partnership" laws....'cause "That's different"
I know how odd this sounds, but I've gone to their meetings, and talked directly to them to find out why they want to deprive GLBT people their of rights. What I found, with very few exceptions, is that they don't (in their minds). They want to "protect their religion"
One of the leaders in the anti Gay Marriage lobby in NC , said to me...actually more like screamed at me "I don't care if gay's get insurance and other benefits, I don't want them violating the sanctity of marriage." I heard the same basic thing over and over again, it's not same sex couples getting equal benefits as married couples that they object to. To them, that's discrimination. What they have problems with is the religious angle of "marriage"
Essentially, most of them are fighting for a word, and in my opinion, we ought to give it to them if it accomplishes the goal of obtaining equal rights for GLBT couples. Call it a "Domestic Partnership" or a "Commitment Contract" whatever...as long as it has the same legal force as "Marriage" why not give the Fundies their favorite word?
I think that if certain GLBT leaders would capitulate on this one word, the entire issue would be settled with little fanfare....but for some reason, they won't. They insist that GLBT people should be able to get "married" just like hetrosexual couples do. WHY? What would be the difference between getting a "Marriage License" or a "Commitment License" IF both conferred the same rights and privileges?
"Marriage" is often seen as a religious term (even though it's not, it's contractual) particularly in the south, and a large chunk of the Christian population perceives "Gay Marriage" as an assault on their religious beliefs. However, many of these same people have no objection to "Domestic Partnership" laws which confer the exact some rights and privileges as "Marriage"
There are MANY Christians who will rally against "Gay Marriage" but they just don't get worked up over "Domestic Partnership" laws....'cause "That's different"
I know how odd this sounds, but I've gone to their meetings, and talked directly to them to find out why they want to deprive GLBT people their of rights. What I found, with very few exceptions, is that they don't (in their minds). They want to "protect their religion"
One of the leaders in the anti Gay Marriage lobby in NC , said to me...actually more like screamed at me "I don't care if gay's get insurance and other benefits, I don't want them violating the sanctity of marriage." I heard the same basic thing over and over again, it's not same sex couples getting equal benefits as married couples that they object to. To them, that's discrimination. What they have problems with is the religious angle of "marriage"
Essentially, most of them are fighting for a word, and in my opinion, we ought to give it to them if it accomplishes the goal of obtaining equal rights for GLBT couples. Call it a "Domestic Partnership" or a "Commitment Contract" whatever...as long as it has the same legal force as "Marriage" why not give the Fundies their favorite word?
I think that if certain GLBT leaders would capitulate on this one word, the entire issue would be settled with little fanfare....but for some reason, they won't. They insist that GLBT people should be able to get "married" just like hetrosexual couples do. WHY? What would be the difference between getting a "Marriage License" or a "Commitment License" IF both conferred the same rights and privileges?
