Unions or Marriage? The Gay Marriage Debate - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 05-12-2004, 07:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Wiccanveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 624
I got in a fight with a friend of mine last night over this. He actually thinks Unions are a good idea and a good way to get people more open minded about gays and lesbian.



The problem I have is that we ( gay/lesbian/bi/ trans ) have been around for hundreds of years already so why should society not accept us by now? America is so backwards sometimes.



Personally I don't think Unions are great because it's still Seperate but Equal. I don't want anyone dictating what I can or cannot do with my personal life.



What does everyone else think?
Wiccanveg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 05-12-2004, 07:24 AM
 
Gracie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,759
People are already dictating what I can do with my life. Yes, I would like to be able to get married, but it's more important to me to be able to have the legal benefits of marriage. If I can get that from a civil union, I'll take it.
Gracie is offline  
#3 Old 05-12-2004, 07:33 AM
Veggie Regular
 
AuroraLily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,634
I personally hate the argument that giving gays and lesbians the right to marriage would lessen the value of marriage. I think most gays and lesbians want the benefits of being a 'spouse', both financial and legal as well as social recognition that the partnership is one based on love and it's long term.

I understand the semantic difference that if you give gays and lesbians the right to for 'unions' then you are saying that heterosexual marriage is different. Someone could make the argument that the terms are 'different but equal'.

I think it should be called marriage.
AuroraLily is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 05-12-2004, 07:44 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
You may get more varied responses if this is moved into the Patch or the Heap. Just a thought.



I think whatever makes the couple happy is good. Screw whatever anyone else thinks 'cause in the end we all die alone. Do what makes you happy today.
GhostUser is offline  
#5 Old 05-12-2004, 07:56 AM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
Civil unions aren't so bad actually. Seperate but equal has some good sides to it because not only do you get the same benefits but the traditional systems are protected from perversion. If gay people were opposed to Seperate But Equal then they wouldn't have their own gay bars and stuff.



Public parks could add special water fountains for gay couples too so they wouldn't infect the water supply. (Especially with AIDS and Herpes going around!) They'd still get their own water to drink, but this way the sanctity of normal water is still preserved and everyone is happy, especially Mother Earth.
kpickell is offline  
#6 Old 05-12-2004, 08:44 AM
Newbie
 
Dropdwaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17
Its legal here in Holland
Dropdwaas is offline  
#7 Old 05-12-2004, 08:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Dr. Schmeebis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiccanveg View Post

I got in a fight with a friend of mine last night over this. He actually thinks Unions are a good idea and a good way to get people more open minded about gays and lesbian.



The problem I have is that we ( gay/lesbian/bi/ trans ) have been around for hundreds of years already so why should society not accept us by now? America is so backwards sometimes.



Personally I don't think Unions are great because it's still Seperate but Equal. I don't want anyone dictating what I can or cannot do with my personal life.



What does everyone else think?



I think the government should ONLY recognize civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution, so it doesn't make sense for our government to recognize it. Why can't we be like other countries in that regard?



If you ask most Americans on the street, they think that Civil Union is something that only gays and lesbians have. They don't realize that it's the only form of union that most of the first world governments actually recognize.
Dr. Schmeebis is offline  
#8 Old 05-12-2004, 09:46 AM
Beginner
 
MusicJudy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 115
Most people don;t bother to bring this up but, back in the day, interracial marriages were illegal! We look at this idea now and think, "WHAT?!" Years from now our next generations will look upon this whole gay marriage issue with the same eyes. It'll just be another footnote in our retarded conservative Christian society.



Gay folks WILL be married though, sometime! It's gonna happen
MusicJudy is offline  
#9 Old 05-12-2004, 10:22 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Dr. Schmeebis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicJudy View Post

Most people don;t bother to bring this up but, back in the day, interracial marriages were illegal! We look at this idea now and think, "WHAT?!" Years from now our next generations will look upon this whole gay marriage issue with the same eyes. It'll just be another footnote in our retarded conservative Christian society.



Gay folks WILL be married though, sometime! It's gonna happen



I hope so. As long as America will continue to practice the ridiculous conflation of marriage and civil union, all should have equal access to it. My ideal America wouldn't acknowledge/recognize religious institutions such as marriage, but as long as they are going to, it should be equally open to all.
Dr. Schmeebis is offline  
#10 Old 05-12-2004, 10:25 AM
 
Gracie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicJudy View Post

Most people don;t bother to bring this up but, back in the day, interracial marriages were illegal!



Not just "back in the day"; here in Alabama, it was illegal until 1999. Doesn't give me much hope for gay marriage OR civil union.
Gracie is offline  
#11 Old 05-12-2004, 10:36 AM
Joe
Veggie Regular
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gracie View Post

Not just "back in the day"; here in Alabama, it was illegal until 1999. Doesn't give me much hope for gay marriage OR civil union.



That's not correct. Laws banning interracial marriages were struck down by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 1965 in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Alabama may have had something on their statute books until 1999, but it was void and meaningless. Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land.



Gay marriage is not comparable to interracial marriage because generally only some (Southern) states had laws against it by the early 1960s. Interracial couples could travel to most other states and get married.
Joe is offline  
#12 Old 05-12-2004, 10:38 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Dr. Schmeebis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

Gay marriage is not comparable to interracial marriage because generally only some (Southern) states had laws against it by the early 1960s. Interracial couples could travel to most other states and get married.



Yeah, but you can travel to some states and get a gay marriage now. To me, that sounds VERY comparable, if not nearly the same.
Dr. Schmeebis is offline  
#13 Old 05-12-2004, 11:09 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Wiccanveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpickell View Post


Public parks could add special water fountains for gay couples too so they wouldn't infect the water supply. (Especially with AIDS and Herpes going around!) They'd still get their own water to drink, but this way the sanctity of normal water is still preserved and everyone is happy, especially Mother Earth.





Think about what your saying. Does that mean we should have public washrooms for Gays only?



So every gay person or couple has Aids and Herpes? What about the heterosexual couple with herpes and aids? do they get a third water fountain?



It's your own view and I do respect that, but I believe that seperating gays and lesbians from the rest of society is ridiculus. We went through that in the 50s and 60s with African Americans. It'd be the same thing.
Wiccanveg is offline  
#14 Old 05-12-2004, 11:11 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Wiccanveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Schmeebis View Post

Yeah, but you can travel to some states and get a gay marriage now. To me, that sounds VERY comparable, if not nearly the same.



Massachusets is becomming legal on May 17th, but they are adding a law that couples from out of state can not come in state and get a liscence. And even if you do get a liscence, it isn't recognized elsewhere.
Wiccanveg is offline  
#15 Old 05-12-2004, 11:14 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiccanveg View Post

Think about what your saying. Does that mean we should have public washrooms for Gays only?



So every gay person or couple has Aids and Herpes? What about the heterosexual couple with herpes and aids? do they get a third water fountain?



It's your own view and I do respect that, but I believe that seperating gays and lesbians from the rest of society is ridiculus. We went through that in the 50s and 60s with African Americans. It'd be the same thing.



I'm just about 99% sure that kpickell was be sarcastic as he's gay.
GhostUser is offline  
#16 Old 05-12-2004, 11:15 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Dr. Schmeebis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiccanveg View Post

Think about what your saying. Does that mean we should have public washrooms for Gays only?



So every gay person or couple has Aids and Herpes? What about the heterosexual couple with herpes and aids? do they get a third water fountain?



It's your own view and I do respect that, but I believe that seperating gays and lesbians from the rest of society is ridiculus. We went through that in the 50s and 60s with African Americans. It'd be the same thing.



Kpickell's sarcasm obviously didn't make it through. Look at his profile, and you'll see that he's gay himself. He's just kidding around.
Dr. Schmeebis is offline  
#17 Old 05-12-2004, 11:19 AM
Veggie Regular
 
strawberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Schmeebis View Post

I think the government should ONLY recognize civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution, so it doesn't make sense for our government to recognize it. Why can't we be like other countries in that regard?



This is exactly what I was going to say.



I think that the government should recognize civil unions between any two people and that if someone would like to call that marriage whether through their religious group or otherwise, then go for it.
strawberry is offline  
#18 Old 05-12-2004, 11:20 AM
Veggie Regular
 
strawberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpickell View Post

Public parks could add special water fountains for gay couples too so they wouldn't infect the water supply. (Especially with AIDS and Herpes going around!) They'd still get their own water to drink, but this way the sanctity of normal water is still preserved and everyone is happy, especially Mother Earth.



lol!
strawberry is offline  
#19 Old 05-12-2004, 11:29 AM
Veggie Regular
 
natalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 712
Firstly, kpickell - haha

Secondly, I agree with what Peter Tatchell (from OUTRAGE) has to say about "both marriage and registered partnerships (which are based on the marriage model)" being "an outdated, restrictive way of providing legal rights to partners in long-term relationships". I also like the sound of his proposed 'solution' - the Unmarried Partners Act. You can read more about it at: http://outrage.nabumedia.com/pressrelease.asp?ID=127
natalie is offline  
#20 Old 05-12-2004, 11:32 AM
Veggie Regular
 
eggplant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,604
Yeah, I definitely sensed some sarcasm there. Otherwise I would have thought kpickell had gone insane...



As for gay marriage, it's still unfathomable to me why people care about it so much (besides gay people who want to get married). Of course it should be legal, rather than just civil unions, because even the term "civil union" doesn't carry the same emotional weight as the term "marriage" for many people. Things move slowly, so it probably won't happen right away, but it'll happen eventually.
eggplant is offline  
#21 Old 05-12-2004, 12:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
bizarro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,688
i think whatever term we choose (marriage/union, etc) gay people should be able to legally live as a couple and obtain all the benefits that hetero couples have. ie; health benefits, adoption, earned income credit if they have a child, etc...that is the major issue for me.

“There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out."-James Randi

bizarro is offline  
#22 Old 05-12-2004, 01:13 PM
Joe
Veggie Regular
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Schmeebis View Post

Yeah, but you can travel to some states and get a gay marriage now. To me, that sounds VERY comparable, if not nearly the same.



No, that is not the same.



Supposedly, today a gay couple can get married in, say, Massachusetts, but that is due to a court ruling that has caused a furor and may very well be overturned by constitutional amendment.



Interracial marriages were allowed by law in most of the States of the US by the 1960s, there were interracial couples who were married for decades in non-Southern states with no legal problems, and where interracial marriages were allowed, there were no active movements to make them illegal. By the time Loving v. Virginia reached the Supreme Court, only a minority of states even tried to prohibit interracial marriages.



Also, there was no "Defence of Non-Interracial Marriage Act" on the federal level and no movement to try to amend the US Constitution to prohibit interracial marriages. Interracial couples who were married in states where such marriages were permitted (the vast majority) were recognized as being married by the Federal government and enjoyed all the legal benefits of married people, from Social Security Benefits to being able to file joint income tax returns to whatever. The situation is just the opposite today with respect to a gay couple married in, say, Massachusetts, and the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" was passed specifically to prohibit gay couples from enjoying any "marriage" rights under federal law.



The two historical situations were not nearly the same.
Joe is offline  
#23 Old 05-12-2004, 01:41 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Dr. Schmeebis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

No, that is not the same.



Supposedly, today a gay couple can get married in, say, Massachusetts, but that is due to a court ruling that has caused a furor and may very well be overturned by constitutional amendment.



Interracial marriages were allowed by law in most of the States of the US by the 1960s, there were interracial couples who were married for decades in non-Southern states with no legal problems, and where interracial marriages were allowed, there were no active movements to make them illegal. By the time Loving v. Virginia reached the Supreme Court, only a minority of states even tried to prohibit interracial marriages.



Also, there was no "Defence of Non-Interracial Marriage Act" on the federal level and no movement to try to amend the US Constitution to prohibit interracial marriages. Interracial couples who were married in states where such marriages were permitted (the vast majority) were recognized as being married by the Federal government and enjoyed all the legal benefits of married people, from Social Security Benefits to being able to file joint income tax returns to whatever. The situation is just the opposite today with respect to a gay couple married in, say, Massachusetts, and the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" was passed specifically to prohibit gay couples from enjoying any "marriage" rights under federal law.



The two historical situations were not nearly the same.



Right. So in the case of interracial marriage, it was a majority of states that allowed it. In the case of gay marriage, it is a vast minority. But everything else being equal, it looks a lot the same to me. And as for acts that violate the Constitution with respect to states honoring one another's laws, the DMA is unconstitutional, and I don't expect it to last. There are of course differences in detail, but again, the essence of the matter (denying rights to a subset of Americans) is identical.
Dr. Schmeebis is offline  
#24 Old 05-12-2004, 03:02 PM
Joe
Veggie Regular
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Schmeebis View Post

Right. So in the case of interracial marriage, it was a majority of states that allowed it. In the case of gay marriage, it is a vast minority. But everything else being equal, it looks a lot the same to me. And as for acts that violate the Constitution with respect to states honoring one another's laws, the DMA is unconstitutional, and I don't expect it to last. There are of course differences in detail, but again, the essence of the matter (denying rights to a subset of Americans) is identical.



Well, you seem to be impervious to facts.



There was nothing comparable to the DMA/DOMA in the 1960s, nor was anything like it even seriously considered.



Maybe the DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional, but no federal court has so ruled on it yet. Moreover, the fact that it passed Congress and was signed into law by the President (supposedly gay-friendly Clinton) is some evidence that the majority of people in the country are against gay marriage. Again, just the reverse of the situation regarding interracial marriage in the 1960s, where only a minority of states were opposed to it.



I am sorry that you seem to have been brainwashed by the mantra "it's just like race; it's just like race; it's just like race." Except it is not just like race.



Another difference that you seem to ignore is that interracial marriage was not an issue in the Presidential races of the 1960s. It is an issue to some degree in the Presidential race upcoming, because the Republicans seem to see it as a "wedge" issue by which they can split their opposition.
Joe is offline  
#25 Old 05-12-2004, 03:12 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Dr. Schmeebis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

Well, you seem to be impervious to facts.



There was nothing comparable to the DMA/DOMA in the 1960s, nor was anything like it even seriously considered.



Maybe the DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional, but no federal court has so ruled on it yet. Moreover, the fact that it passed Congress and was signed into law by the President (supposedly gay-friendly Clinton) is some evidence that the majority of people in the country are against gay marriage. Again, just the reverse of the situation regarding interracial marriage in the 1960s, where only a minority of states were opposed to it.



I am sorry that you seem to have been brainwashed by the mantra "it's just like race; it's just like race; it's just like race." Except it is not just like race.



Another difference that you seem to ignore is that interracial marriage was not an issue in the Presidential races of the 1960s. It is an issue to some degree in the Presidential race upcoming, because the Republicans seem to see it as a "wedge" issue by which they can split their opposition.



Look, I'm saying they are similar in spirit. You keep looking up more facts and accusing me of making assertions way more ambitious than those I am actually making. Boiled down to an atomic idea or ethos, it's basically denying a privelege and/or right to a subset of Americans.



Now, please post some more figures so that I can repeat myself a fourth time.
Dr. Schmeebis is offline  
#26 Old 05-12-2004, 05:38 PM
Beginner
 
BadrashClothing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 146
Marriage should be abolished anyway (from federal recognition) because of Seperation of Church and State.



There should only be unions. But until that time comes then I want the same exact rights as everyone else.



And I want them now.



The only reason to be against gay marriage is because of certain Religions. And that is debatable. There are to many people already on this earth, they should thank us, not hate us.
BadrashClothing is offline  
#27 Old 05-12-2004, 06:11 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadrashClothing View Post

Marriage should be abolished anyway (from federal recognition) because of Seperation of Church and State.



*sigh* If you actually would take the time to understand the law, you would see that marriage as recognized by both states and the federal government only entails the recognition of a social arrangement. There is no required religious component, and therefore no Constitutional violation.



Quote:

There should only be unions. But until that time comes then I want the same exact rights as everyone else.



And I want them now.



You have the same rights. Any male (female) of legal age and of sound mental capacity may marry any other female (male) that meets the same requirements, provided the blood relation is not too close (varies by state.)
Tame is offline  
#28 Old 05-12-2004, 06:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Dr. Schmeebis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

*sigh* If you actually would take the time to understand the law, you would see that marriage as recognized by both states and the federal government only entails the recognition of a social arrangement. There is no required religious component, and therefore no Constitutional violation.



Ding ding ding! You're exactly right! They recognize a civil union, but for some silly reason, call it a marriage! Which only gives politically active religious people a gateway for "defending" sanctity of a federal and state institution on religious grounds! Talk about messed up / tangled logic.
Dr. Schmeebis is offline  
#29 Old 05-12-2004, 07:10 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Princess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 541
Comment to badrash clothing from tame ...[QUOTE=Tame]*sigh* If you actually would take the time to understand the law, you would see that marriage as recognized by both states and the federal government only entails the recognition of a social arrangement. There is no required religious component, and therefore no Constitutional violation.







Hey dont get mad at the genius!!

lol jk



dont hurt me!!!!
Princess is offline  
#30 Old 05-12-2004, 07:17 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Schmeebis View Post

Ding ding ding! You're exactly right! They recognize a civil union, but for some silly reason, call it a marriage! Which only gives politically active religious people a gateway for "defending" sanctity of a federal and state institution on religious grounds! Talk about messed up / tangled logic.



Well ding dong, that's because the laws are based on English Common law, which has recognized marriage as we know it for centuries.

Fortunately, we have taken the religious component out long ago.
Tame is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off