Silly Mrs. Clinton - Page 14 - 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 08-13-2007, 08:58 PM   #196
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


You've never heard of a wedding at the courthouse!
and...? You've never heard of two farming brothers not having sex together who live together?
__________________

__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:00 PM   #197
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


And now you fear and bias comes out.

Why?
Exactly the opposite. I'm saying be 'inclusive' of all life partnerships, not limiting.
__________________

__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:08 PM   #198
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


BVS, what do 'they' want?

I'd say just about every gay couple that I know would want this if it were offered tomorrow. They want those rights.
Not sure who 'they' is, there wasn't a single 'they' in that post.

No, I mean show me a group of brothers or sisters that want this? You know what we were talking about, don't talk around the subject.

And no, I'm pretty sure most gay couples wouldn't want this, just like you and your wife wouldn't really want this. Many actually want the right to marry, not JUST the rights that come with it.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:10 PM   #199
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:55 AM
I really like this explanation on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_i...hip_in_Alberta

Quote:
According to the Alberta Ministry of Justice, "The act covers a range of personal relationships that fall outside of marriage, including committed platonic relationships where two people agree to share emotional and economic responsibilities."[2] Under the terms of the law, couples in a mutually dependent relationship, conjugal or not, are deemed to be adult interdependent partners after three years of living together, even without signing a partnership agreement, as is the case with common-law marriage.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:12 PM   #200
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
And no, I'm pretty sure most gay couples wouldn't want this, just like you and you wife wouldn't really want this. Many actually want the right to marry, not JUST the rights that come with it.
Ok, if you say so. This is exactly what my wife and I have. I don't care what you call it. Seems odd that you would think that gay couples wouldn't want this.

What about it don't you think they would like, the name? I'm not worried about the name.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:18 PM   #201
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Ok, if you say so. This is exactly what my wife and I have. I don't care what you call it. Seems odd that you would think that gay couples wouldn't want this.

What about it don't you think they would like, the name? I'm not worried about the name.
Did you and your wife have a ceremony or did you just sign a contract? Really, that's all you and your wife have? Then why do you call her your wife, why not just your interdependent?

I don't know why you would rather dumb down the relationship rather than upgrade what homosexuals can do to be equal with what you have.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:20 PM   #202
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


and...? You've never heard of two farming brothers not having sex together who live together?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:22 PM   #203
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
I don't know why you would rather dumb down the relationship rather than upgrade what homosexuals can do to be equal with what you have.
Why do you only want to limit it to 'xxxxxsexuals'?

Are you saying that people can't have a ceremony for unions/partnerships?

I have no problem calling our legal realationship a union or partnership or interdependent partnership. I have no problem calling my SO my partner. I like it better actually than wife.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:23 PM   #204
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,887
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Nice assumption.

I like Kucinich because he's the only one for actual marriage.
My "assumption" is that you will be voting in the national election.

And Kucinich won't be a nominee. Neither will Ron Paul....or Mickey Mouse. I have no idea where Mickey stands on gay marriage. But I imagine he supports civil unions, many American do.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:27 PM   #205
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Why do you only want to limit it to 'xxxxxsexuals'?
People like to express their love.

Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Are you saying that people can't have a ceremony for unions/partnerships?

I have no problem calling our legal realationship a union or partnership or interdependent partnership. I have no problem calling my SO my partner. I like it better actually than wife.
You still haven't shown me anyone who wants this. I don't see any brothers and sisters lining up for this.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:29 PM   #206
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


I have no idea where Mickey stands on gay marriage. But I imagine he supports civil unions, many American do.
Actually Mickey is pretty gay friendly.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:30 PM   #207
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
You still haven't shown me anyone who wants this. I don't see any brothers and sisters lining up for this
Apparently the people in Alberta Canada want it. I don't really feel like going through every other country right now, but just might someday!
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:30 PM   #208
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
As long as it's not limited to romantic involvement about sexual orientation.
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
I'd like to neurtralize the religious aspect of it, and take it out of the argument.
You seem to be suggesting the 'romantic' and 'religious' aspects are one and the same. But civil marriage presumes a longterm romantic relationship just as clearly as religious marriage does. Why does broadening that definition to include gay couples (a type of romantic relationship) call for dismantling the whole premise altogether? I think this is why you're attracting suspicion--it's hard not to see it as a way to avoid legitimizing gay relationships as 'real' romantic relationships worthy of founding a household deserving of government benefits upon. Because that, of course, is what all the controversy out there ultimately boils down to. It's not about whether adults with dependent relatives or friends deserve certain special legal benefits to assist them in that effort.
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_i...hip_in_Alberta
Quote:
Since 2003, Adult interdependent relationships have been available to both same-sex and different-sex couples in the Canadian province of Alberta, providing some but not all the rights and benefits of marriage.
......................................................
Furthermore, "Non-conjugal friends living together in a relationship of interdependence for a continuous period of not less than three years will become adult interdependent partners, whether or not they intend to. While it may be possible to contract out of some of the statutes amended by the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act," it is not possible to contract out of the Dependants Relief Act. Thus, if two elderly friends, same-sex or different-sex, live together in a platonic relationship for several years, when one dies, the other may be able to claim a larger share of the deceased's estate than any surviving children, even if the two friends never signed an adult interdependent partnership agreement.
Sounds like Alberta (which also recognizes same-sex marriage, so this isn't an 'alternative' to that) had quite a different set of interests in mind in implementing this act.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:33 PM   #209
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
You seem to be suggesting the 'romantic' and 'religious' aspects are one and the same. But civil marriage presumes a longterm romantic relationship just as clearly as religious marriage does. Why does broadening that definition to include gay couples (a type of romantic relationship) call for dismantling the whole premise altogether? I think this is why you're attracting suspicion--it's hard not to see it as a way to avoid legitimizing gay relationships as 'real' romantic relationships worthy of founding a household deserving of government benefits upon. Because that, of course, is what all the controversy out there ultimately boils down to. It's not about whether adults with dependent relatives or friends deserve certain special legal benefits to assist them in that effort.
Good points Yolland. I'm not for dismantling the premise. Just including platonic relationships. I don't care what the institution is called.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:40 PM   #210
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Apparently the people in Alberta Canada want it. I don't really feel like going through every other country right now, but just might someday!
Yes people will settle if they have to, that's no suprise.


"In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its landmark ruling in the case of M. v. H., which essentially required all provinces to extend the benefits of common-law marriage to same-sex couples, under the equality provisions of Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[3] Owing to the conservative political climate in the province, the government of Alberta was slow to respond, but in 2000 Alberta did amend the provincial Marriage Act to specifically limit marriage to different-sex couples.

In January 2002, the Alberta Law Reform Institute, funded in part by the provincial government, published its recommendations in a report, Recognition of Rights and Obligations in Same-Sex Relationships.[4] Subsequently, Bill 30, establishing adult interdependent relationships, was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in the spring session of 2002 but was not passed at that time. In the fall session, the bill was re-introduced as 30-2 and was passed with amendments as the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act (S.A. 2002, c. A-4.5) on December 4, 2002. The act was proclaimed in force on June 1, 2003.[5]

The act did not amend the Marriage Act, but did amend 69 other Alberta laws, including:[6]"


This wasn't implemented because some brothers wanted "some but not all the rights and benefits of marriage", it was a settling to at least get some rights for gay couples.
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 12:55 AM.


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