MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 20 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-18-2004, 07:41 PM   #286
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
OK since polygamy is being discussed here, and homosexuality discussed in the polygamy thread, I guess this goes here?... I'm still confused about this:



How exactly does this make polygamy non-consensual? I read the other posts but maybe I'm having a stupid day or I'm blind or something. I don't see how having more than one wife to choose from has anything to do with consent, as long as the wife chosen on a particular night consents and as long as all of the wives have consented to that form of relationship.
See my response in the polygamy thread.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 11:15 PM   #287
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Some questions about legal issues that people have mentioned as reasons that marriages should be allowed:

1. Hospital visitation/medical decisions
-Doesn't the final choice of visitors rest with the patient? (Assuming the doctor hasn't restricted all visitors)
-For health care decisions, can't partners grant health care proxy and/or power of attorney? I didn't think you needed to be married to set this up.

2. Leaving estates/property upon death
-Can't partners currently be joint owners of property such as homes and cars, and ownership automatically transfers if one dies? And with wills, you can leave your things to whoever you want, you don't have to be married to them, right?

3. Children
-Even if it is not legal in a particular state for both partners to adopt a child, can't you state in your will who you want your child to go to if you die?
__________________

__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 11:48 PM   #288
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave

1. Hospital visitation/medical decisions
-Doesn't the final choice of visitors rest with the patient? (Assuming the doctor hasn't restricted all visitors)
You're assuming the patient is conscious. There have been cases where the parents of homosexual people have denied visitation rights to the long-term partners of their adult children. There is nothing to be legally done about it, since those partners have been unable to marry.

Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave

-For health care decisions, can't partners grant health care proxy and/or power of attorney? I didn't think you needed to be married to set this up.
Why should they have to go through all this expensive rigamarole that you don't have to do because you're able to marry your partner?


Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave

2. Leaving estates/property upon death
-Can't partners currently be joint owners of property such as homes and cars, and ownership automatically transfers if one dies? And with wills, you can leave your things to whoever you want, you don't have to be married to them, right?
As far as I know, yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave

3. Children
-Even if it is not legal in a particular state for both partners to adopt a child, can't you state in your will who you want your child to go to if you die?
Courts take children away from gay partners all the time, frequently when the grandparents of the children take the gay parent to court. And I believe, but I'm not sure, there are some states which still don't allow homosexual people to legally adopt. I think that our pal Jeb has blocked this in Florida.


So, you see, bls, gay people are consistently denied rights because they don't have access to the legal protection marriage affords. And before someone brings up "civil unions," please remember that "separate, but equal" was struck down in 1954.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 11:59 PM   #289
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
to Dread, but it belongs in the other one too.
Then I will not be responding in this thread anymore. If someone in here can say it is wrong for the governement to act against one's religious beliefs, and it is not OK to respond with an example IE the supreme court...with the Mormon Church, then you are effectively dictating how we as people who have paid to be here can respond. My argument had nothing to do with the right or wrongness of polygamy, but with the Supreme Court ruling against a religious practice.

As a supporter of the right for the gay community to marry, I am deeply upset at the flippant attitude that has been in this thread towards those opposed to Gay marriage. I am more upset that it has now been legislated how we are allowed to respond or not.


FYM is a sinking ship....enjoy the one way "discussion"

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 12:22 AM   #290
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
Some questions about legal issues that people have mentioned as reasons that marriages should be allowed:

1. Hospital visitation/medical decisions
-Doesn't the final choice of visitors rest with the patient? (Assuming the doctor hasn't restricted all visitors)
-For health care decisions, can't partners grant health care proxy and/or power of attorney? I didn't think you needed to be married to set this up.

2. Leaving estates/property upon death
-Can't partners currently be joint owners of property such as homes and cars, and ownership automatically transfers if one dies? And with wills, you can leave your things to whoever you want, you don't have to be married to them, right?

3. Children
-Even if it is not legal in a particular state for both partners to adopt a child, can't you state in your will who you want your child to go to if you die?

Here is a list of benefits/rights afforded to married couples in California that do not extend to same sex partners. The exceptions would be in the counties where domestic partnerships are recognized.

left at the alter
__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 03:40 AM   #291
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 04:52 AM
It was merely that the line of debate of polygamy has been painstakingly split and I am tryint to respect the notion that this topic stick to gay marriage. My only point in that whole thing was to basically say the Mormon example is moot because that church does not support polygamy. It has nothing to do with dictating who's opinions we allow and who's we don't Dread.
It is not about silencing the majority who support gay marriage. Be angry Dread, but not of misunderstanding.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 07:32 AM   #292
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:52 PM
You know, there are no rational, non-religious reasons to ban gay marriage. But this also isn't a religious war anymore.

This is a political issue; one that is more about bickering between Republicans and Democrats. And that's where it becomes irrational. To support gay marriage is to be a Democrat; to be opposed to it is to be a Republican and you have too many people who tow the party line.

The same happened with civil rights, and I think the irony isn't lost that the Democratic Party has only had two presidents since the civil rights era. Too many people didn't like it then and fled to the Republican Party that, at least in their mind, represented good old WASP-dominated society. And, even if conservatives no longer advocate segregation (thankfully), now they have their new cause to scare people into voting for them.

The irony is that, ultimately, I think the GOP will come around in a couple decades and support gay marriage. Rather than being the forefront of civil rights, the party always lags behind, and, parasitically, takes advantage of all the work that the Democrats put forward.

In fact, I almost think that if the Republican Party valued tolerance and kicked the Christian Coalition to the curb, they'd probably attract more voters, as I think that there are more people who will vote against the party for being bigoted than those who will vote for them, because of it.

But the line has been drawn. A good Republican now introduces "Defense of Marriage" amendments, with long, impassioned, irrational speeches about how gays are to blame for everything that straight society is deficient in (a convenient scapegoat, similar to blaming blacks for crime), and then having no proof. And good Republicans, along with cowardly Democrats fearing that the bigot vote won't come to their aid in November, follow along.

I can, at least, sympathize with racial minorities, as a result, because their rights have been politicized in the same manner for decades, and, while things are finally improving for them, I'm not going to wait up until I'm an old man for the GOP to apologize.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 07:56 AM   #293
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bono's American Wife



Here is a list of benefits/rights afforded to married couples in California that do not extend to same sex partners. The exceptions would be in the counties where domestic partnerships are recognized.

left at the alter
Thanks, Char. I think this says it all. It's about denying equal protection. And, as I said "domestic partnerships" is indeed separate, but equal.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 09:26 AM   #294
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:52 PM
,
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 10:47 AM   #295
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
To support gay marriage is to be a Democrat; to be opposed to it is to be a Republican and you have too many people who tow the party line.
From a distance this appears to be true; however, over the decades in places where Democrats have held power, nothing has been done.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 12:25 PM   #296
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

if the Republican Party valued tolerance and kicked the Christian Coalition to the curb

Yep, that sure sounds like 'tolerance' to me
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 12:38 PM   #297
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Not all Democrats support gay marriage, though, or even support civil unions. And my dad, for example, is an old-fashioned Republican who believes the government should stay out of people's families and bedrooms and doesn't get worked up about gay marriage. It's unfair to pigeonhole people of particular political stripes into predetermined stances on issues, even if Democrats *tend* to be okay with gay marriage and Republicans *tend* to be against it.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 12:39 PM   #298
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[B]
As a supporter of the right for the gay community to marry, I am deeply upset at the flippant attitude that has been in this thread towards those opposed to Gay marriage. I am more upset that it has now been legislated how we are allowed to respond or not.
B]
I agree. So far, people have implied that my religious beliefs are bullshit and they make me discriminating and homophobic...I think those are some pretty harsh conclusions made by people who've never met me.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 12:53 PM   #299
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 11:52 AM
I think this discussion is going nowhere. People are getting pissed off for no reason, others just keep saying the same thing over and over and won't listen to the other side, and others are throwing around labels and acusations. And I'm speaking about both sides. This is why this issue will never get resolved anytime soon.

So I'm out.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 12:55 PM   #300
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
So far, people have implied that my religious beliefs are bullshit and they make me discriminating and homophobic...I think those are some pretty harsh conclusions made by people who've never met me.
If your religious beliefs lead you to the conclusion that it's wrong to be gay then that's your business. Obviously I disagree, but it's your right to hold that opinion. I do happen to think that believing it is wrong to be gay is homophobic and that denying gay people the right to marry is discrimination, but if those are your opinions (not saying that they are your opinions as I don't know what your religious beliefs are, but making a comment in general about the subject) then that's your own business.

I'd never call someone's religious beliefs "b-----t" no matter how much I disagree. However I do think religious beliefs are a poor justification for a law. Not everyone subscribes to the same religion so you can't expect everyone to obey a law which is based on the beliefs of one religion. Religious beliefs, no matter which religion they are based on, can't be a justification for a law in a secular state.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com