The politicization of homosexualityFollow

They can adopt children together. However it is not the children aspect that most gay people are seeking to be legally married for. It is the other legalities involved such as inheritance, medical authorization, hospital visitation, etc..

I see no reason why 2 people that want to get hitched outside of the church can't have this option available to them. I think the problem lays in the fact that a ceremony presided over by a justice of the peace is still called a marriage when it should in fact have a different name. Marriage should only be performed and sanctioned by religious institutions while government should sanction "civil unions". The rights would all remain the same under the civil union but would not step on the toes of those wishing to keep marriage as a "sacred" institution.

A marriage performed by a church could also be recognized as a civil union as long as all conditions are met. A civil union would not have to be recognized as a marriage by the church. This would satisfy the requirements of keeping church and state separate.

No. While there is an ongoing debate about one state's legal reading on this applying to all 50 states, at this time a gay marriage in Vermont, for instance, is not recognised elsewhere legally or otherwise (insurance-wise and whatnot).

Totem

Well I'm grateful for the statement of fact, Totem, but what I'm asking is if you think other states should recognize said "civil unions", or if the federal government should step in and lay down the law (pun intended).

Nice to see that my intelligent posts actually get response. I might try this more often....

On the issue of marriage being there to take care of children:

As I stated before, I had both my children when I wasn't married. The oldest child is from a previous relationship and we were never married. But in the state of Tenn., the father still has to take some financial responsibility for his child, whether or not the couple is married. My ex carried our son on his insurance and paid me child support. Now, granted, I had to pursue this, but it wasn't hard. Sign a few papers, and bam, it's done. So the whole issue of marriage taking care of children didn't apply in my case.

Bottom line for me is, I don't see how gay marriage hurts anything. I know plenty of gay people who want the same rights as straight people when it comes to insurance issues, distribution of property if one dies, and as someone else stated, being considered "family" if their SO is ill.

I can't see how any gay people getting married will hurt me or any other straight marriage.

JMO, of course.

OMG tare...are you a complete moron or do you just like to hear yourself talk? heres the analogy broken down for you...i'll try to use small words.

You wouldn't let your children (did you miss that part?) play openly in a neighborhood where a definate danger is lurking. I wouldn't want to dance around in a street where I knew a growing number of people with HIV were as well. geesh, use your head and stop looking for arguement. if I'm going to have to explain every freaking thing 400 times then don't argue with me...at least learn to read first before you post.

and HIV will die when exposed to air..after a handful of seconds. the range is anywhere from a few seconds to just over a minute. and I suppose if the blood landed on your shirt Jophiel, you'd be all set except for maybe a little grossed out..but if you have an open wound somewhere the blood lands then.. (think about it...paper cut, the pimple you just popped, the cut from shaving..) YOU must live in a bubble if you don't think these things can happen. or maybe your one of those people that will protest its reality until it happens to you, then start singing "woe is me". Why don't you search the internet and start talking with some people that have contracted it innocently and tell THEM how unlikely it is.

And yes, there are 3rd world countries with a far larger epidemic than us. I'm not comparing and contrasting here, I'm stating a concern for the area I live in...which is high on the list as well. Pretty sad when our country (in places) is close on a list compared to 3rd world countries to life threatening STDs because people can't practice a little safer measures..if you want to start comparing. And I live in the SF Bay area, have gay friends and even go to gay clubs with friends on occasions..the things going on in a large portion (notice I didnt say all) of the gay community are FAR from safe.

You all keep attacking my concern as if I'm out to destroy homosexuals...get a grip. My concern is valid as it relates to my safety and well being as well as those I care about. I think people other than gays are at fault as well..not everyone is safe when it comes to sex and there are a ton of drug users spreading it as well. The only reason I stated the concern as it relates to homosexuals is because 1) reported cases (alone) in the gay community in the area I live is HUGE, and 2) this thread is about "The politicization of homosexuality". When talking about politically accepting and supporting a way of life that studies are showing has an abnormal growth in the rate of HIV, I'd say my concern is a valid one. Any good politician would tear apart ANY new politically supported agenda to see its entire cause and effect on the population.

Summary: I'm not attacking gays for being gay. I'm attacking the effect the lifestyle is having on the world around them. The rate of HIV in that community is high and rising, and that occasionally bleeds out to an innocent victim or two. The higher the rate grows, the greater the chance I or someone I care about becomes that innocent victim, and that my friend, is a valid concern.

(you twist this around and turn it into some self glorifying gay rights movement or whatever it is your saying OTHER THAN WHAT I AM CLEARLY STATING I MEAN Tare, then go bark in a mirror..you aren't going to waste my time anymore)

No, I didn't miss that brilliance from your original post. I actually stated that exact thing in my response, dumbass. Yet again, you cannot explain that bizarre analogy. I think I understood perfectly what you were saying.



Odds are...one in a billion. Yay! Strong case there, Empyre.



Again, I did appease you and say it could happen, but it's not likely and I, for one, won't live in fear of it happening.



Why don't you search the net, since this is the basis of your weak argument? Back up your claims with fact, for a change.




I repeat: what shall we do, oh mighty Empyre? No, you aren't attacking gays for being gay, you are attacking their lifestyle. Anyone else see an outright contradiction here? The original point I was trying to make was that both gays and straights are spreading disease. Both gays and straights can give you HIV, or the clap, or hepatitis, and on and on. I do take issue with you pointing your finger at the gay community and saying "fear those guys, for they are the greatest spreaders of disease."



Woof!

the institution of marriage supports races. it specifically states it as the union of a man and a woman. its not a matter of black and white. gay people want to change this definition to fit their own personal agenda's..and want the world to bend over backwards to support them. I think THAT is the debate, not race.

If I brought my chicken up to the courthouse and started protesting the law should support the union of us two, are we going to change it again? Sure, sounds pretty silly, but its no different saying a man and a chicken than saying a man and a man or a woman and a woman..it still goes against what the institution of marriage defines.

I also have a car that goes 140 mph. I wont lie, I like to drive fast...I try not to. But just because I like to drive fast, are we going to start changing the definition of our speed laws and car requirements just because I and a growing number of other people like to speed?

No Empyre your Homophobic definition of marriage states that my 'Equality' definition states it as a union between two humans as equals regardless of colour, sex or religious denomination or lack thereof.



get a grip on reality will you.

My post was trying to show you that discrimination is discrimination, be it colour, sex or sexual persuasion. not to turn it into a race debate.

Edited, Mon Feb 23 15:29:41 2004 by tarv

Edited, Mon Feb 23 15:31:51 2004 by tarv

Moe, I strongly urge you to check his "other" analogy. Even more effective!

This is the part I love. When an argument is so obviously inaccurate, unsupported and flawed that the only response left is name-calling. Yay!

Jophiel, what happened to your guru-dom?

Don't go clouding the issue with common sense, Jophiel.