|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| I don't like the word marriage being used with gays. I am indifferent to them and fully support them having exactly identical benefits for their relationships as I have for mine, but using the word marriage puts me off. |
I think a lot of people feel this way, which is why the legal rights involved in marriage should just be packaged as civil unions and opened to any consenting adults who care to engage in them, while concepts like marriage should be non-legal arrangements with cultural or religious implication. It's fairest to everyone involved, and doesn't step on any tradition's toes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tukmax wrote: |
| So much for democracy. |
What democracy are you talking about? America is a republic. Its founders made it a republic because they knew how stupid and quixotic crude majorities of people could be. That's the whole purpose of the third and equal branch of government, the judiciary.
It may be a democratic principle that a raw majority can grant or strip a minority of Consitutionally granted rights, but it is not a republican or a Constitutional principle.
As a republic, the concept of who is covered by the Constitution has evolved, by which I mean it has expanded the idea of who is covered by the founders' really good initital ideas. Blacks and women, to name the obvious.
As for me, I really don't care what we call it, but the fact remains that there are several concrete benefits that accrue to state-sanctioned marriage that do not apply to same-sex contracts. My case is only one instance - fededral immigration law keeps me from sponsoring my partner/husband/boyfriend/paramour as an immigrant. Our relationship spans more than a decade, but it is an offical void. Any straight male can sponsor his mail order bride for what amounts to a dowry, sight unseen, and that is seen somehow as deserving of official imprimatur. Talk to me about sanctity, and I will laugh in your face.
And I will have the last laugh. Maybe not this year. Maybe not next. But it's over. We've already won. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gay people should be given the chance to be locked into the same miserable, embittered and loveless relationships as their straight counterparts. It's only fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cj1976 wrote: |
| Gay people should be given the chance to be locked into the same miserable, embittered and loveless relationships as their straight counterparts. It's only fair. |
Exactly. We have gone from
| Quote: |
| Marriage isn�t a civil right. It�s a civil wrong. We always thought that one of the good things about being a lesbian, or gay man, is that you don't have to get married. There is a basic conflict here, between those who see the gay movement as a way to gain acceptance in straight society, and lesbians and gay men who are fighting to create a society in our own image. A decent and humane society where we can be free. The origins of the LGBTQ movement are revolutionary. The rebellions at Stonewall and San Francisco City Hall were led by drag queens and butches who rejected heterosexual roles and restrictions |
to the situation today. It is a complete 180. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| cj1976 wrote: |
| Gay people should be given the chance to be locked into the same miserable, embittered and loveless relationships as their straight counterparts. It's only fair. |
Exactly. We have gone from
| Quote: |
| Marriage isn�t a civil right. It�s a civil wrong. We always thought that one of the good things about being a lesbian, or gay man, is that you don't have to get married. There is a basic conflict here, between those who see the gay movement as a way to gain acceptance in straight society, and lesbians and gay men who are fighting to create a society in our own image. A decent and humane society where we can be free. The origins of the LGBTQ movement are revolutionary. The rebellions at Stonewall and San Francisco City Hall were led by drag queens and butches who rejected heterosexual roles and restrictions |
to the situation today. It is a complete 180. |
Well, it's a complete 180 from the radical gays and lesbians you quote. And thank God for those radicals, because they advanced the dialogue mightily. But really, what universe do you live in where you think demolishing marriage completely is a good idea? I suppose I have to summon some respect for your radical leftist purity, but as a really liberal queer man, I'm not down with it, at all.
Much is made about the idea that marriage is a religious function, unsuited for sanction by the state, but that's bull-pucky. Marriage is about property. In times past, marriage was about a man's ownership of the woman in queston, but in modern times, that model is no longer valid in the West. In any case, however religion has been grafted onto the idea of marriage (in that institution's entire history), the idea has always been more skewed toward the reality of a civil contract between two people, between two families.
I gave my personal example in my last post about a significant benefit of this civil contract, but there are more. The unmarried partner of a dead person has no standing in a court of law to inherit ANYTHING, but the married partner can usually disenfranchise even the natural-born children of said partner, in the absensce of a will, bacause all property owned by one partner in marraige is co-owned by the other, equally. A married partner can have the last word in funereal matters, but an unmarried partner has NO say.
I don't care what you call it, but unless you wish to undo thousands of years of accepted contract law, marriage equality is the only just choice of a just society.
If you want to argue against marriage as an institution, that's a different thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dorimiso
Joined: 06 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm pretty happy that the judge overturned the law, and it's quite brilliant that, if the Supreme Court votes that it's unconstitutional, then gay marriage is legal everywhere in America, right?
Whoo hoo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
So long as the divorce rate is over 50 percent, people can get married before they have known each other for a year, or lived with each other at all, and psycho bunts like Britney Spears can get married while drunk for 55 hours as a publicity stunt to sell more records, I will punch out any idiot who spouts off the words "sanctity of marriage"
As for people not liking the word marriage being used, hey I can understand that. Some people are just not comfortable with it. BUt its a word, a marriage has evolved beyond a "relgious tradition" why do we need to call gay marriage a "civil union" and straight marriages a "marriage" my wife and I were married in a civl service by a Justice of the Peace in Las Vegas ( while sober and with forethought and planning it should be noted) Why should our "civil service" considered a "marriage" but a gay couples not be?
I would love to know the stats on what the divorce rates are among relgious people, are they higher/lower? Considering many relgions ask couples to neither have sex nor live together before marriage ( 2 cornerstones of seeing if a marriage can work long term) I wonder if this actually does help or hinder marriages when it comes to longevity.
People can not hold up the religion card and "sanctity of marriage" while the majority of the people in said religion will freely practice (one, two or all three) pre marital sex, living together before marriage, and divorce.
I think Many straight people hold up "sancity of marriage" as a cop out because many of them are fully aware that if Gays are allowed to marry the stats wil show that gays will stay in a marriage longer, the divorce rate will be staggeringly low, and that Gays take the sancity of marriage much more seriously than straight people do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| cj1976 wrote: |
| Gay people should be given the chance to be locked into the same miserable, embittered and loveless relationships as their straight counterparts. It's only fair. |
Exactly. We have gone from
| Quote: |
| Marriage isn�t a civil right. It�s a civil wrong. We always thought that one of the good things about being a lesbian, or gay man, is that you don't have to get married. There is a basic conflict here, between those who see the gay movement as a way to gain acceptance in straight society, and lesbians and gay men who are fighting to create a society in our own image. A decent and humane society where we can be free. The origins of the LGBTQ movement are revolutionary. The rebellions at Stonewall and San Francisco City Hall were led by drag queens and butches who rejected heterosexual roles and restrictions |
to the situation today. It is a complete 180. |
Well, it's a complete 180 from the radical gays and lesbians you quote. And thank God for those radicals, because they advanced the dialogue mightily. But really, what universe do you live in where you think demolishing marriage completely is a good idea? I suppose I have to summon some respect for your radical leftist purity, but as a really liberal queer man, I'm not down with it, at all.
Much is made about the idea that marriage is a religious function, unsuited for sanction by the state, but that's bull-pucky. Marriage is about property. In times past, marriage was about a man's ownership of the woman in queston, but in modern times, that model is no longer valid in the West. In any case, however religion has been grafted onto the idea of marriage (in that institution's entire history), the idea has always been more skewed toward the reality of a civil contract between two people, between two families.
I gave my personal example in my last post about a significant benefit of this civil contract, but there are more. The unmarried partner of a dead person has no standing in a court of law to inherit ANYTHING, but the married partner can usually disenfranchise even the natural-born children of said partner, in the absensce of a will, bacause all property owned by one partner in marraige is co-owned by the other, equally. A married partner can have the last word in funereal matters, but an unmarried partner has NO say.
I don't care what you call it, but unless you wish to undo thousands of years of accepted contract law, marriage equality is the only just choice of a just society.
If you want to argue against marriage as an institution, that's a different thread. |
So you want to bring your lover from abroad, and he be able to inherit when you die. Yes, you just want to buy into the dominant paradigm. By allowing you the "privilege" of marriage, you are being co-opted and don't even know it. (Don't take that personally.)
I don't want to abolish marriage; I want to transform society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
So you want to bring your lover from abroad, and he be able to inherit when you die. Yes, you just want to buy into the dominant paradigm. By allowing you the "privilege" of marriage, you are being co-opted and don't even know it. (Don't take that personally.)
I don't want to abolish marriage; I want to transform society. |
No, my only issue is being able to live with the man I love, however evil and destructive a paradigm that may seem to fit. When you finish transforming society (good luck with that, by the way), I do hope that along the way you'll have made some paridigm-breaking allowance for my case. Really, I'm not terribly interested in the literally hundreds of other benefits that marriage automatically confers.
Your societal transformation ideas are, I'm sure, Mr. Reed, laudatory, but unless they deal on a global scale and can be accomplished within my lifetime, they are of no help to me, and I'm afraid I must admit to being a far more self-centered person than you are. Or a more realistic one. (Don't take that personally.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is also the main reason I'm so dissatisfied with the individual states determining same sex marriage. Those who want to marry a foreign national as a partner are unable to get a green card for their spouse.
Another issue: In the state where I am now same sex couples are specifically prohibited from being part of their spouse's insurance package by many companies.
Whether gay "unioned" couples should remain monogamous with their partner and become conventional married couples or not is a different issue.
There were same sex unions in ancient Rome so it does have a precedent in Western society albeit in ancient times. There were also some native American tribes that had same-sex unions so it has a precedent in America too (yeah maybe this is reaching a bit). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| I don't like the word marriage being used with gays. I am indifferent to them and fully support them having exactly identical benefits for their relationships as I have for mine, but using the word marriage puts me off. |
I think a lot of people feel this way, which is why the legal rights involved in marriage should just be packaged as civil unions and opened to any consenting adults who care to engage in them, while concepts like marriage should be non-legal arrangements with cultural or religious implication. It's fairest to everyone involved, and doesn't step on any tradition's toes. |
This. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| People are so quick to criticize anyone who's PC but bring up the word marriage and those same people get really sensitive about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| I don't like the word marriage being used with gays. I am indifferent to them and fully support them having exactly identical benefits for their relationships as I have for mine, but using the word marriage puts me off. |
I think a lot of people feel this way, which is why the legal rights involved in marriage should just be packaged as civil unions and opened to any consenting adults who care to engage in them, while concepts like marriage should be non-legal arrangements with cultural or religious implication. It's fairest to everyone involved, and doesn't step on any tradition's toes. |
Nah. In the end, civil rights should not be subject to popular opinion. But I accept that often they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| I don't like the word marriage being used with gays. I am indifferent to them and fully support them having exactly identical benefits for their relationships as I have for mine, but using the word marriage puts me off. |
I think a lot of people feel this way, which is why the legal rights involved in marriage should just be packaged as civil unions and opened to any consenting adults who care to engage in them, while concepts like marriage should be non-legal arrangements with cultural or religious implication. It's fairest to everyone involved, and doesn't step on any tradition's toes. |
Nah. In the end, civil rights should not be subject to popular opinion. But I accept that often they are. |
I agree civil rights shouldn't be subject to popular opinion, which is why all the actual rights involved should be available to all adult citizens, regardless of the gender of their partner. The term marriage itself, however, is not a civil right, and I see no reason why we can't ensure people have access to these actual rights while simultaneously being respectful to those traditions with regards to terminology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| I don't like the word marriage being used with gays. I am indifferent to them and fully support them having exactly identical benefits for their relationships as I have for mine, but using the word marriage puts me off. |
I think a lot of people feel this way, which is why the legal rights involved in marriage should just be packaged as civil unions and opened to any consenting adults who care to engage in them, while concepts like marriage should be non-legal arrangements with cultural or religious implication. It's fairest to everyone involved, and doesn't step on any tradition's toes. |
Nah. In the end, civil rights should not be subject to popular opinion. But I accept that often they are. |
I agree civil rights shouldn't be subject to popular opinion, which is why all the actual rights involved should be available to all adult citizens, regardless of the gender of their partner. The term marriage itself, however, is not a civil right, and I see no reason why we can't ensure people have access to these actual rights while simultaneously being respectful to those traditions with regards to terminology. |
Marriage is not a civial right but EQUALITY is.
If some people should be able to get maried then ALL people should be able to. So please don't hide behind a false technicality |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
